Parliament debated the Penal Code amendments in 2007. That debate was dominated by the non-repeal of Section 377A. But another important issue was the partial abolition of the marital rape defence, under which it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. My thoughts on this injustice are in my speech.
A few Singaporeans have now started a campaign to repeal the remainder of the marital rape defence that remains on the books. I signed the petition earlier today, and I would encourage everyone to join me in expressing your disagreement with the Government's stand that in most situations, it is actually OK for husbands to force their wives to have sex against their wives' consent.
Showing posts with label Penal Code. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Penal Code. Show all posts
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Penal Code speech on YouTube
Update: This post has been updated with a video of me presenting the petition to Parliament (courtesy of Roy Tan), and improved videos of my speech in full (courtesy of Watch TowerV again).
Presentation of petition to Parliament
Speech on Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Part 1)
Speech on Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Part 2)
Speech on Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Part 3)
Presentation of petition to Parliament
Speech on Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Part 1)
Speech on Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Part 2)
Speech on Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Part 3)
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Speech on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill: 22 October 2007
By now, my views on this issue have been widely-reported. In particular, a New Paper report last week had carried an interview with extensive quotes from me (it felt really weird buying a newspaper with my face on the cover -- so much so I gave it to the cashier with the back cover facing up!).
So I'm not going to write much commentary around this speech, other than to highlight that apart from Section 377A, I very strongly disagreed with other parts of the bill. The speech below is based on the prepared text and has been (mostly) checked against delivery. I ran out of time, but the part that I skipped basically contained some of the more offensive quotes from http://www.keep377a.com/, which I will not post here.
I will (hopefully later this week) write another post to respond to all the comments posted on this blog, which I have refrained from replying to earlier.
Oh, and the video of my speech will be available on the CNA website for a week.
1. Mr Speaker Sir, I rise to speak on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, and on the petition I had presented to Parliament earlier. I will first speak on two aspects of the amendment bill not related to Section 377A, and then on Section 377A and the petition.
2. The Penal Code is one of the most important statutes that we have, because the criminal law touches so many people so intimately. This bill represents the first review of the Penal Code in 22 years. It seeks to do a lot, and yet it leaves so much undone.
3. The bill introduces some positive changes. For instance, there is a new offence of sexual grooming. Going by the experience in the UK, this could well become an important weapon in the arsenal against sexual predators, especially those on the Internet.
4. Another important change is the criminalization of child sex tourism, extending to acts performed overseas. Notwithstanding potential issues of enforcement, this will help greatly in closing the door on Singaporeans engaging in such despicable practices.
5. But Sir, some aspects of the amendment bill are not so positive. I will focus on three in my speech.
6. Firstly, clause 105 of the amendment bill increases the maximum sentences for a number of offences. I echo Ms Sylvia Lim’s comments on this increase, and would add to them.
7. Sir, depriving a person of his or her liberty is a very serious matter. We should not be so hasty in increasing the maximum sentences for so many offences. The general increase in maximum fines is clearly justifiable, even necessary, given that they were last reviewed in 1952.
8. But while money loses its value due to inflation, there is no equivalent concept when it comes to imprisonment. The intrinsic value of a person’s liberty does not diminish over time. If anything, with a higher standard of living and greater economic opportunities today, the opportunity cost of a day in jail is arguably a lot higher now than in the past.
9. In addition, an excessive maximum sentence could well be oppressive towards accused persons in the manner described by Ms Sylvia Lim. This insidious effect is undesirable, unfair and detrimental to the balance of the criminal justice system.
10. MHA should therefore provide adequate justification for each increase in maximum sentence. In its public consultation paper last year, MHA stated that it has “avoided increasing imprisonment terms unnecessarily”. It should disclose the different factors considered for each maximum sentence increased, and why it had concluded that the existing maximum sentence was inadequate. It has not done so.
11. To my mind, it is dangerous to increase the maximum sentences of so many offences, without proper justification. It seems to pay insufficient respect to the fundamental importance of a person’s liberty. In the absence of such justifications, I have no choice but to disagree with this aspect of the amendment bill.
12. I now turn to the issue of marital rape.
13. The Penal Code has historically provided an absolute defence of marital immunity. A husband is legally incapable of raping his wife. In other words, regardless of whether or not she consents to sex, regardless of whether or not he forces himself upon her, it is simply impossible in law for a husband to rape his wife.
14. The amendment bill proposes to take a “calibrated approach” in limiting this defence. Marital immunity will now not apply where divorce or separation proceedings have been commenced or completed, or where the wife has applied for or obtained an injunction or protection order against the husband.
15. MHA’s stand is that total abolition of marital immunity would be “too radical” and would change “the whole complexion of marriage in our society”, citing “a need to strike a balance between the needs of women who require protection and the general concerns about conjugal rights and the expression of intimacy in a marriage.”
16. Sir, I was flabbergasted when I read that. Perhaps it is because I am young and unmarried, and hold a romantic view of marriage, untarnished by its reality. But surely that is the conception that we should still uphold. The proposed change still sends the message that in most circumstances, a husband cannot be considered to have raped his wife even if he knew that she did not consent. Under this change, the critical issue for rape in a marriage is not consent, but whether the wife has taken certain legal steps.
17. MHA talks about “conjugal rights”, suggesting that a husband has some sort of right to sex from his wife. This seems to be derived from the archaic view that a wife, by marrying the husband, has irrevocably consented to sex with her husband. It is linked to the view that a wife is some sort of property of the husband.
18. Sir, such a view has no place in a modern society, not even in a limited form. A man does not have the right to demand sex from his wife at any time. Sex without consent is rape, whether it takes place within or outside a marriage.
19. To me, it is simple: no means no, and rape is rape. Rape within a marriage is the same as rape outside marriage. In a modern society, marriage is a partnership of equals. We are a modern society. So why are we still retaining this defence, even in a limited form? I cannot fathom that.
20. MHA also cites “the expression of intimacy in a marriage”. Sir, if sex without consent is seen as being a permissible expression of intimacy in a marriage, then I fear for marriages and married people in Singapore. What sort of conception of marriage do we have, if the law recognizes sex without consent as being legitimate? That cannot be right.
21. I can do no better than to quote the response of the Association of Wwomen for Action and Research to last year’s public consultation paper:
22. The amendment bill effectively penalizes the most vulnerable of wives: those who have no choice but to continue in a marriage, for whatever reason. It says that if a woman has the wherewithal to leave, then we will protect her from rape, but not if she is completely dependent on her husband. That again cannot be right.
23. For all of these reasons, I disagree with the proposed change to Section 375 of the Penal Code. Instead, I urge the Government to repeal marital immunity in its entirety. That is what a modern society needs, that is what fairness requires, and that is what justice demands.
24. Sir, I now turn to the petition I presented to this House earlier, which argues that Section 377A would be unconstitutional upon the repeal of Section 377. For ease of convenience, I will refer to Section 377A as “377A”, and Section 377 as “377”.
25. The amendment bill amends 377 to legalise private, consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults. But 377A, which criminalizes the same acts between men, is retained. This discriminates against homosexual and bisexual men. The amendment of 377 without also repealing 377A is therefore unconstitutional under Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which provides that “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.” That is because it does not satisfy the legal requirements for derogating from Article 12(1).
26. A valid derogation from Article 12(1) must satisfy the “rational nexus” test, that is, it must be rationally connected to a legitimate purpose of the statute in question. So we must first consider the purposes of the Penal Code.
27. The preambles of both the Penal Code and the amendment bill are silent on this. So let’s turn to what MHA has said. Its public consultation paper on the draft amendment bill dated 8 November 2006 stated that the review is intended to make the Penal Code “more effective in maintaining a safe and secure society in today’s context”. So, according to the Government, the objective of the Penal Code is to maintain a safe and secure society.
28. But 377A criminalizes consensual sexual acts between men, even if it takes place in the privacy of their own homes. How does the private sexual conduct of consenting adults make Singapore unsafe or less secure?
29. Furthermore, criminal lawyers generally accept that the criminal law should be concerned with two elements, and two elements only: harm and culpability, of which only harm is relevant here.
30. Professor Michael Hor teaches criminal law at the NUS Law Faculty. In a recent article, he explained that criminal activity must entail harm to others that is recognizable and tangible. In other words, if an act does not harm others, then it should not be a crime. This is taught to first-year law students in their first few weeks, and indeed I recall being taught this over ten years ago.
31. Professor Hor went on, and I quote:
32. The Law Society, in its submission to MHA on the draft amendment bill, similarly noted:
33. Private, consensual sexual acts between adult males does not impact on the safety and security of society. Furthermore, it is accepted that the criminal law addresses activities that harm others, but the Government seems to accept that 377A does not cause harm. So how can 377A possibly be linked to a legitimate purpose of the Penal Code? The answer is that it does not, and it cannot.
34. And the Government has effectively admitted this. It does not seek to justify the retention of 377A on grounds of societal safety and security, or of harm to others from the conduct contemplated by 377A. Instead, its reasons for retaining 377A are that the majority of Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality, and so 377A should be retained to reflect, or “sign-post”, this majority view of Singaporeans. But reflecting the morality of the majority is not a stated aim of the Penal Code, nor is it an accepted objective of the criminal law.
35. Clearly then, 377A has no rational connection with any legitimate aim of the Penal Code. Its retention, which leads to different treatments of men engaging in oral and anal sex, and of heterosexual adults doing the same, without any legally acceptable justification, must therefore be unconstitutional.
36. I would even argue that there can be no legitimate aim of the Penal Code with which 377A can be rationally connected, so as to justify its retention. The amendment of 377 permits heterosexual adults to engage in private, consensual oral and anal sex. By definition then, we are saying that there is no harm arising from such private and consensual acts between heterosexual adults.
37. Why should it be any different when those acts are performed between adult men? What is the differentiating factor that leads to harm? There is none. There is no harm that would be recognised by the criminal law.
38. It is not harm that results from such acts being performed between adult men, but the moral disgust that the majority says it feels. But there is a very good reason why the criminal law should not reflect public morality. And that is because doing so can lead to the discriminatory oppression of minorities.
39. In times past and in other countries, public morality and disgust have been used to justify slavery; discrimination against racial and religious minorities; and discrimination against women, including not permitting them to work or to vote. All of these are now universally recognised as being wrong and immoral. Let us not perpetuate or repeat the mistakes of others in the past.
40. Sir, the “sign-posting” argument is fundamentally flawed. It is couched in the language of “the majority”. But let us not forget another phrase involving the majority: the tyranny of the majority. That is precisely why the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal protection are entrenched as a fundamental liberty in Article 12(1).
41. Even if we accept the “sign-posting” argument, the amendment bill seems to reflect public morality in a selective and discriminatory manner. It is surely undisputed that society views extra-marital sex as immoral. And surely, most Singaporeans disapprove of prostitution, and all types of discrimination, such as age, racial and gender discrimination. But we have not criminalized any of these.
42. Indeed, the amendment bill even repeals Section 498, which makes it an offence for a man to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the intent of having “illicit intercourse” with her. The reason given is that it is an archaic offence which is no longer relevant in today’s context.
43. But public morality in today’s society remains firmly opposed to extra-marital sex. So why do we selectively reflect public morality with respect to private, consensual acts between adult men, but not public morality on adultery? Why are we not “sign-posting” society’s disapproval of adultery by retaining Section 498, without pro-actively enforcing it?
44. The Senior Minister of State has argued that repealing Section 498 is not an endorsement of adultery or extra-marital sex. In the same way, repealing 377A is also not an endorsement of homosexuality. Such inconsistency is discriminatory.
45. And taking the “sign-posting” argument to its logical conclusion, if we repeal Section 498, are we then telling the world that seducing a married woman, hence leading to adultery, is acceptable? By lifting the marital rape defence in limited circumstances, are we endorsing marital rape in the other circumstances?
46. “Sign-posting” is all or nothing. We cannot “sign-post” selectively, with some provisions reflecting public morality and others not; it does not work that way. It is a fundamentally flawed argument that does not stand up to logic or reason or the principles of a democratic society, and so we should shy away from it.
47. Sir, Mr Cheng, a Singapore graduate student in the US, e-mailed this to me:
48. Many people have described the repeal of 377A as a “slippery slope”. I think Mr Cheng has identified the true slippery slope that we face today.
49. For all of these reasons, I believe the continued retention of 377A to be unconstitutional. I think the arguments in the petition are valid and correct in law, and so I presented it to Parliament. I humbly ask this House to consider these arguments, and acknowledge their cogency in this debate.
50. Sir, that was the petition. I will now speak on why I support the repeal of 377A, quite apart from its unconstitutionality.
51. Contrary to how many have sought to frame the issue, the repeal of 377A is not a gay issue. It is not about gay rights. It is not just for gays, or friends or relatives of gays.
52. No. It is about fairness, justice and non-discrimination. It is about tolerance, understanding and inclusiveness. It is about upholding the fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution, the basic pillars underpinning our country. These are issues for all Singaporeans.
53. The response to the petition bore this out. The signatories were a broad and diverse group, showing that the issues cut across all lines and resonate universally with people. Straight and gay, male and female, young, middle-aged and old, civil servants, professionals and students, religious and non-religious – they all signed the petition. They all understood the guiding light of treating others as you want them to treat you. They were united by the common belief that 377A is unfair, unjust and wrong, and hence should be repealed.
54. And such lengths they went to, to convey the strength of their belief. So many, including straight men, went out to collect signatures on their own accord. They did this voluntarily, without being asked. An 18-year-old student collected 70 signatures. Two others collected 150 each.
55. Madam Tan, a 63-year-old mother of two heterosexual sons, collected signatures from her peers. She took it upon herself to do this. She believed that she needed to do it, “for a healthy attitude towards life”. She collected five signatures.
56. Apart from the petition, there was also an online open letter to the Prime Minister calling for a repeal of 377A. This open letter, which collected 8120 signatures, was handed to the Prime Minister’s Office earlier today. A Mr Goh signed it, and he articulated the universality of the issue:
57. I do not know anything about Mr Goh, but I am humbled by his principled stand against discrimination. It is the right and noble path, standing fast to our principles even in the face of personal dislikes. Surely we can all learn from him?
58. Sir, the Government has stated that it will not pro-actively enforce 377A. This may be meant as a compromise, but it is unsatisfactory and problematic. The Law Society pointed out that this position was an admission that 377A is “out-of-step with the modern world”, adding that it risked “bringing the law into disrepute”.
59. I also quote Professor Michael Hor:
60. The Senior Minister of State has noted that there have been convictions under 377A, for cases involving abuse of young persons and acts performed in public. And I absolutely agree that such instances should remain criminalised. But 377A as it is currently worded is not limited to those situations, and covers private, consensual acts between adults as well. If the Government intends to criminalise only the abuse of young persons and public acts, then 377A should be amended to do this. But it has not been amended.
61. Furthermore, not pro-actively enforcing 377A does not mean that its retention is without cost. The Government says that it seeks to reflect the moral values of the majority, but what about the human cost to gay persons and their families? What about the cost to Singapore from those who leave Singapore because of this law? What price, this reflection and endorsement of public morality?
62. The majority of Singaporeans seems to speak as if the non-enforcement of 377A means that everything is fine – but the majority would say that. Because they are not the subjects of discrimination, because they are not the minority who has to live under the threat of 377A, a Sword of Damocles that could fall with a change of policy by the government of the day.
63. Sir, let me share with this House, the pain voiced by some signatories of the online open letter.
64. Madam Mak is a 69-year-old mother of a gay 40-something son. He and his partner have lived with her for over 13 years. She called them “the best things” that had happened to her, in her 69 years in Singapore. She wrote:
65. Madam K, a civil servant, wrote:
66. A doctor, who signed off only as “criminal doctor”, wrote:
67. Sir, please bear with me as I quote one last person. Mr Choo questioned the consequences of repealing 377A. He questioned whether, if 377A was abolished, those who supported its retention would suffer. He asked if they would be, and I quote:
68. Mr Choo went on:
69. And then there are those who leave. If we truly believe that every Singaporean counts, and surely we must when people are our only natural resource, then have we counted the cost of all those who have lost? I will cite only one example, to show how heavy the cost to Singapore can be.
70. Mr Alex Liang e-mailed me a few months back. He is a former Singaporean who renounced his citizenship and is now a UK citizen. By all objective measures, Mr Liang is someone who would have served the country very well.
71. We had invested heavily in him. He received a sports award for 3 years running, and was also a humanities scholar. He represented the nation in gymnastics, receiving generous training allowances. He speaks 8 languages, and had excellent academic results.
72. But the moment he completed National Service, he left for Europe and he stayed there. He had long decided to leave Singapore, as he did not see a viable future for himself in Singapore as a gay man.
73. Sir, I ask again: what price, this effort to “sign-post” the views of the majority?
74. Even if we want to signal the majority’s disapproval of homosexuality, we do not need to retain 377A. It can be done through other means. Repealing 377A does not mean that society endorses or approves of homosexuality.
75. Let us learn from the example of the Censorship Review Committee. Its 2003 report noted the distinction between “allowing” and “endorsing”, stating that allowing certain content is quite different from, and should not be misinterpreted as, an endorsement. The same reasoning applies here.
76. In any event, this House should be leading and not following. We should lead by example. We should be doing what is right, fair and just, what is constitutional and keeping in spirit with Singapore’s cherished principles of equality and non-discrimination. We pride ourselves on doing the unpopular but right thing, so why are we abdicating our responsibilities now?
77. Sir, I get a little emotional when I hear the “sign-posting” argument. That is because it claims to sign-post values held by this House and by Singaporeans. It purports to proclaim the values that I, as a Member of this House and as a Singaporean, believe in and want to proclaim.
78. But what are these values? What is this majority view, what does the majority whose values we want to “sign-post” think and say?
79. For that, I turned to the keep377a.com website. It was set up to solicit signatures for an online open letter in support of 377A. Let me just read some of the messages that have been posted on this website...
[Deputy Speaker interrupted to inform me that I had 3 minutes left]
80. Yes, Sir. Instead of reading the comments, I will just talk about what I feel this House should do.
81. I ask this House to “sign-post” the values of fairness, justice, non-discrimination, openness and inclusiveness, which are values fundamental to a secular democracy. I ask this House to endorse the view that our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different, that ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore, and that we should build a nation where every citizen has a place, where all can live in dignity and harmony. And if those words sound familiar, that is because those were the very words of the Prime Minister in his swearing-in speech in August 2004.
82. These are the right things to do. Some have said that Singapore is not ready, that this is not the right time to repeal 377A.
83. I disagree. I say that there is no wrong time to do the right thing. Now is the time, not to do the pragmatic or practical thing, but to do the right thing.
84. Now is the time, to turn our backs on prejudice, discrimination, intolerance and hatred.
85. Now is the time, for this House, which represents all Singaporeans, to lead by example.
86. Now is the time, to uphold the noble ideals of our founding fathers, ideals upon which our country was founded and which hold our society together. The ideals of a democratic society, based on justice and equality. The ideal of all persons being equal before the law, and all persons having the equal protection of the law.
87. Now is the time, to do the right thing and repeal 377A.
88. Sir, with that, and for all the reasons I have stated in my speech, namely the increase of so many maximum sentences without justification, the retention of the marital rape defence albeit in a limited form, and the failure to repeal 377A, I oppose the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill.
So I'm not going to write much commentary around this speech, other than to highlight that apart from Section 377A, I very strongly disagreed with other parts of the bill. The speech below is based on the prepared text and has been (mostly) checked against delivery. I ran out of time, but the part that I skipped basically contained some of the more offensive quotes from http://www.keep377a.com/, which I will not post here.
I will (hopefully later this week) write another post to respond to all the comments posted on this blog, which I have refrained from replying to earlier.
Oh, and the video of my speech will be available on the CNA website for a week.
Speech on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill
1. Mr Speaker Sir, I rise to speak on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, and on the petition I had presented to Parliament earlier. I will first speak on two aspects of the amendment bill not related to Section 377A, and then on Section 377A and the petition.
2. The Penal Code is one of the most important statutes that we have, because the criminal law touches so many people so intimately. This bill represents the first review of the Penal Code in 22 years. It seeks to do a lot, and yet it leaves so much undone.
3. The bill introduces some positive changes. For instance, there is a new offence of sexual grooming. Going by the experience in the UK, this could well become an important weapon in the arsenal against sexual predators, especially those on the Internet.
4. Another important change is the criminalization of child sex tourism, extending to acts performed overseas. Notwithstanding potential issues of enforcement, this will help greatly in closing the door on Singaporeans engaging in such despicable practices.
5. But Sir, some aspects of the amendment bill are not so positive. I will focus on three in my speech.
General increase in maximum imprisonment sentences
6. Firstly, clause 105 of the amendment bill increases the maximum sentences for a number of offences. I echo Ms Sylvia Lim’s comments on this increase, and would add to them.
7. Sir, depriving a person of his or her liberty is a very serious matter. We should not be so hasty in increasing the maximum sentences for so many offences. The general increase in maximum fines is clearly justifiable, even necessary, given that they were last reviewed in 1952.
8. But while money loses its value due to inflation, there is no equivalent concept when it comes to imprisonment. The intrinsic value of a person’s liberty does not diminish over time. If anything, with a higher standard of living and greater economic opportunities today, the opportunity cost of a day in jail is arguably a lot higher now than in the past.
9. In addition, an excessive maximum sentence could well be oppressive towards accused persons in the manner described by Ms Sylvia Lim. This insidious effect is undesirable, unfair and detrimental to the balance of the criminal justice system.
10. MHA should therefore provide adequate justification for each increase in maximum sentence. In its public consultation paper last year, MHA stated that it has “avoided increasing imprisonment terms unnecessarily”. It should disclose the different factors considered for each maximum sentence increased, and why it had concluded that the existing maximum sentence was inadequate. It has not done so.
11. To my mind, it is dangerous to increase the maximum sentences of so many offences, without proper justification. It seems to pay insufficient respect to the fundamental importance of a person’s liberty. In the absence of such justifications, I have no choice but to disagree with this aspect of the amendment bill.
Marital immunity
12. I now turn to the issue of marital rape.
13. The Penal Code has historically provided an absolute defence of marital immunity. A husband is legally incapable of raping his wife. In other words, regardless of whether or not she consents to sex, regardless of whether or not he forces himself upon her, it is simply impossible in law for a husband to rape his wife.
14. The amendment bill proposes to take a “calibrated approach” in limiting this defence. Marital immunity will now not apply where divorce or separation proceedings have been commenced or completed, or where the wife has applied for or obtained an injunction or protection order against the husband.
15. MHA’s stand is that total abolition of marital immunity would be “too radical” and would change “the whole complexion of marriage in our society”, citing “a need to strike a balance between the needs of women who require protection and the general concerns about conjugal rights and the expression of intimacy in a marriage.”
16. Sir, I was flabbergasted when I read that. Perhaps it is because I am young and unmarried, and hold a romantic view of marriage, untarnished by its reality. But surely that is the conception that we should still uphold. The proposed change still sends the message that in most circumstances, a husband cannot be considered to have raped his wife even if he knew that she did not consent. Under this change, the critical issue for rape in a marriage is not consent, but whether the wife has taken certain legal steps.
17. MHA talks about “conjugal rights”, suggesting that a husband has some sort of right to sex from his wife. This seems to be derived from the archaic view that a wife, by marrying the husband, has irrevocably consented to sex with her husband. It is linked to the view that a wife is some sort of property of the husband.
18. Sir, such a view has no place in a modern society, not even in a limited form. A man does not have the right to demand sex from his wife at any time. Sex without consent is rape, whether it takes place within or outside a marriage.
19. To me, it is simple: no means no, and rape is rape. Rape within a marriage is the same as rape outside marriage. In a modern society, marriage is a partnership of equals. We are a modern society. So why are we still retaining this defence, even in a limited form? I cannot fathom that.
20. MHA also cites “the expression of intimacy in a marriage”. Sir, if sex without consent is seen as being a permissible expression of intimacy in a marriage, then I fear for marriages and married people in Singapore. What sort of conception of marriage do we have, if the law recognizes sex without consent as being legitimate? That cannot be right.
21. I can do no better than to quote the response of the Association of Wwomen for Action and Research to last year’s public consultation paper:
“Rape is not sex, it is violence. No wife who has been raped considers the act to be merely sex. It is a form of violence, aimed at violating the victim in one of the most humiliating manners. … To equate sex with rape is to equate a caress with a beating.
[…]
Throughout the eighties and beyond, girls were continually warned in schools to be alert for sexual predators, and given the message that rape was the worst possible violation against a woman. It is truly ironic that these same girls, now adult women, are told that they have to subject themselves to this most humiliating of assaults by none other than their husbands.”
22. The amendment bill effectively penalizes the most vulnerable of wives: those who have no choice but to continue in a marriage, for whatever reason. It says that if a woman has the wherewithal to leave, then we will protect her from rape, but not if she is completely dependent on her husband. That again cannot be right.
23. For all of these reasons, I disagree with the proposed change to Section 375 of the Penal Code. Instead, I urge the Government to repeal marital immunity in its entirety. That is what a modern society needs, that is what fairness requires, and that is what justice demands.
Petition presented on 22 October 2007
24. Sir, I now turn to the petition I presented to this House earlier, which argues that Section 377A would be unconstitutional upon the repeal of Section 377. For ease of convenience, I will refer to Section 377A as “377A”, and Section 377 as “377”.
25. The amendment bill amends 377 to legalise private, consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults. But 377A, which criminalizes the same acts between men, is retained. This discriminates against homosexual and bisexual men. The amendment of 377 without also repealing 377A is therefore unconstitutional under Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which provides that “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.” That is because it does not satisfy the legal requirements for derogating from Article 12(1).
26. A valid derogation from Article 12(1) must satisfy the “rational nexus” test, that is, it must be rationally connected to a legitimate purpose of the statute in question. So we must first consider the purposes of the Penal Code.
27. The preambles of both the Penal Code and the amendment bill are silent on this. So let’s turn to what MHA has said. Its public consultation paper on the draft amendment bill dated 8 November 2006 stated that the review is intended to make the Penal Code “more effective in maintaining a safe and secure society in today’s context”. So, according to the Government, the objective of the Penal Code is to maintain a safe and secure society.
28. But 377A criminalizes consensual sexual acts between men, even if it takes place in the privacy of their own homes. How does the private sexual conduct of consenting adults make Singapore unsafe or less secure?
29. Furthermore, criminal lawyers generally accept that the criminal law should be concerned with two elements, and two elements only: harm and culpability, of which only harm is relevant here.
30. Professor Michael Hor teaches criminal law at the NUS Law Faculty. In a recent article, he explained that criminal activity must entail harm to others that is recognizable and tangible. In other words, if an act does not harm others, then it should not be a crime. This is taught to first-year law students in their first few weeks, and indeed I recall being taught this over ten years ago.
31. Professor Hor went on, and I quote:
“The government has been strangely silent about the harm that 377A is intended to prevent. Indeed consistent statements over a number of years from the highest officials of the land lead any reasonable observer to think that the government no longer believes, if indeed it did before, that the sort of activity contemplated by 377A is harmful at all. If corroboration were required, it lies in the repeated assurances of the government that 377A will not be enforced – apparently because there is no harm to be prevented, no offender to be rehabilitated, no potential offender to be deterred, and no victim to be satisfied.
One might, of course, disagree with the government’s position on the harmfulness of 377A activity, but once that position is taken, how can it be right for 377A activity to remain a crime?”
32. The Law Society, in its submission to MHA on the draft amendment bill, similarly noted:
“… the criminal law’s proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct. Private consensual homosexual conduct between adults does not cause harm recognizable by the criminal law. Thus, regardless of one’s personal view of the morality or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence.”
33. Private, consensual sexual acts between adult males does not impact on the safety and security of society. Furthermore, it is accepted that the criminal law addresses activities that harm others, but the Government seems to accept that 377A does not cause harm. So how can 377A possibly be linked to a legitimate purpose of the Penal Code? The answer is that it does not, and it cannot.
34. And the Government has effectively admitted this. It does not seek to justify the retention of 377A on grounds of societal safety and security, or of harm to others from the conduct contemplated by 377A. Instead, its reasons for retaining 377A are that the majority of Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality, and so 377A should be retained to reflect, or “sign-post”, this majority view of Singaporeans. But reflecting the morality of the majority is not a stated aim of the Penal Code, nor is it an accepted objective of the criminal law.
35. Clearly then, 377A has no rational connection with any legitimate aim of the Penal Code. Its retention, which leads to different treatments of men engaging in oral and anal sex, and of heterosexual adults doing the same, without any legally acceptable justification, must therefore be unconstitutional.
36. I would even argue that there can be no legitimate aim of the Penal Code with which 377A can be rationally connected, so as to justify its retention. The amendment of 377 permits heterosexual adults to engage in private, consensual oral and anal sex. By definition then, we are saying that there is no harm arising from such private and consensual acts between heterosexual adults.
37. Why should it be any different when those acts are performed between adult men? What is the differentiating factor that leads to harm? There is none. There is no harm that would be recognised by the criminal law.
38. It is not harm that results from such acts being performed between adult men, but the moral disgust that the majority says it feels. But there is a very good reason why the criminal law should not reflect public morality. And that is because doing so can lead to the discriminatory oppression of minorities.
39. In times past and in other countries, public morality and disgust have been used to justify slavery; discrimination against racial and religious minorities; and discrimination against women, including not permitting them to work or to vote. All of these are now universally recognised as being wrong and immoral. Let us not perpetuate or repeat the mistakes of others in the past.
40. Sir, the “sign-posting” argument is fundamentally flawed. It is couched in the language of “the majority”. But let us not forget another phrase involving the majority: the tyranny of the majority. That is precisely why the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal protection are entrenched as a fundamental liberty in Article 12(1).
41. Even if we accept the “sign-posting” argument, the amendment bill seems to reflect public morality in a selective and discriminatory manner. It is surely undisputed that society views extra-marital sex as immoral. And surely, most Singaporeans disapprove of prostitution, and all types of discrimination, such as age, racial and gender discrimination. But we have not criminalized any of these.
42. Indeed, the amendment bill even repeals Section 498, which makes it an offence for a man to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the intent of having “illicit intercourse” with her. The reason given is that it is an archaic offence which is no longer relevant in today’s context.
43. But public morality in today’s society remains firmly opposed to extra-marital sex. So why do we selectively reflect public morality with respect to private, consensual acts between adult men, but not public morality on adultery? Why are we not “sign-posting” society’s disapproval of adultery by retaining Section 498, without pro-actively enforcing it?
44. The Senior Minister of State has argued that repealing Section 498 is not an endorsement of adultery or extra-marital sex. In the same way, repealing 377A is also not an endorsement of homosexuality. Such inconsistency is discriminatory.
45. And taking the “sign-posting” argument to its logical conclusion, if we repeal Section 498, are we then telling the world that seducing a married woman, hence leading to adultery, is acceptable? By lifting the marital rape defence in limited circumstances, are we endorsing marital rape in the other circumstances?
46. “Sign-posting” is all or nothing. We cannot “sign-post” selectively, with some provisions reflecting public morality and others not; it does not work that way. It is a fundamentally flawed argument that does not stand up to logic or reason or the principles of a democratic society, and so we should shy away from it.
47. Sir, Mr Cheng, a Singapore graduate student in the US, e-mailed this to me:
“Retaining 377A on the basis that the 'conservative' majority is uncomfortable with homosexuality sets a dangerous precedence [sic] for our society.
It suggests that any majority group can now regulate the private activities of a minority group because it is uncomfortable with it or feels threatened by it.
Imagine what this means for the many majority-vs-minority fault-lines within the Singapore society - Chinese vs others, citizens vs non-citizens, heartlanders vs cosmopolitans, a majority religious group vs a minority one.
Breeding the majority group's self-righteousness to demand deference from the minorities will weaken the social cohesion of our society based on mutual respect and tolerance.
The repeal of 377A will make a clear statement on how, in Singapore, we will always have to find ways to live harmoniously with people who are not like us.”
48. Many people have described the repeal of 377A as a “slippery slope”. I think Mr Cheng has identified the true slippery slope that we face today.
49. For all of these reasons, I believe the continued retention of 377A to be unconstitutional. I think the arguments in the petition are valid and correct in law, and so I presented it to Parliament. I humbly ask this House to consider these arguments, and acknowledge their cogency in this debate.
Universality of non-discrimination argument
50. Sir, that was the petition. I will now speak on why I support the repeal of 377A, quite apart from its unconstitutionality.
51. Contrary to how many have sought to frame the issue, the repeal of 377A is not a gay issue. It is not about gay rights. It is not just for gays, or friends or relatives of gays.
52. No. It is about fairness, justice and non-discrimination. It is about tolerance, understanding and inclusiveness. It is about upholding the fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution, the basic pillars underpinning our country. These are issues for all Singaporeans.
53. The response to the petition bore this out. The signatories were a broad and diverse group, showing that the issues cut across all lines and resonate universally with people. Straight and gay, male and female, young, middle-aged and old, civil servants, professionals and students, religious and non-religious – they all signed the petition. They all understood the guiding light of treating others as you want them to treat you. They were united by the common belief that 377A is unfair, unjust and wrong, and hence should be repealed.
54. And such lengths they went to, to convey the strength of their belief. So many, including straight men, went out to collect signatures on their own accord. They did this voluntarily, without being asked. An 18-year-old student collected 70 signatures. Two others collected 150 each.
55. Madam Tan, a 63-year-old mother of two heterosexual sons, collected signatures from her peers. She took it upon herself to do this. She believed that she needed to do it, “for a healthy attitude towards life”. She collected five signatures.
56. Apart from the petition, there was also an online open letter to the Prime Minister calling for a repeal of 377A. This open letter, which collected 8120 signatures, was handed to the Prime Minister’s Office earlier today. A Mr Goh signed it, and he articulated the universality of the issue:
“I must admit that I am somewhat “homophopic”, [sic] but I believe that nobody should be discriminated against [for] his belief, or in this case sexual inclination. If they make me uncomfortable, I just don't mix in their social circle.”
57. I do not know anything about Mr Goh, but I am humbled by his principled stand against discrimination. It is the right and noble path, standing fast to our principles even in the face of personal dislikes. Surely we can all learn from him?
No pro-active enforcement of 377A
58. Sir, the Government has stated that it will not pro-actively enforce 377A. This may be meant as a compromise, but it is unsatisfactory and problematic. The Law Society pointed out that this position was an admission that 377A is “out-of-step with the modern world”, adding that it risked “bringing the law into disrepute”.
59. I also quote Professor Michael Hor:
“The moral force of the criminal law is blunted if there are crimes which are, the government assures the public, never to be enforced, and its “perpetrators” never brought to court and punished.
The criminal laws are the ground rules of our society and if it is to be accorded the respect it deserves, it must be reserved for conduct which the government considers to be clearly harmful to society.”
60. The Senior Minister of State has noted that there have been convictions under 377A, for cases involving abuse of young persons and acts performed in public. And I absolutely agree that such instances should remain criminalised. But 377A as it is currently worded is not limited to those situations, and covers private, consensual acts between adults as well. If the Government intends to criminalise only the abuse of young persons and public acts, then 377A should be amended to do this. But it has not been amended.
61. Furthermore, not pro-actively enforcing 377A does not mean that its retention is without cost. The Government says that it seeks to reflect the moral values of the majority, but what about the human cost to gay persons and their families? What about the cost to Singapore from those who leave Singapore because of this law? What price, this reflection and endorsement of public morality?
62. The majority of Singaporeans seems to speak as if the non-enforcement of 377A means that everything is fine – but the majority would say that. Because they are not the subjects of discrimination, because they are not the minority who has to live under the threat of 377A, a Sword of Damocles that could fall with a change of policy by the government of the day.
63. Sir, let me share with this House, the pain voiced by some signatories of the online open letter.
64. Madam Mak is a 69-year-old mother of a gay 40-something son. He and his partner have lived with her for over 13 years. She called them “the best things” that had happened to her, in her 69 years in Singapore. She wrote:
“Please tell me, Mr. PM, why are you teaching me to be ashamed of them? If this country doesn't want them, where can they go? Please tell me.”
65. Madam K, a civil servant, wrote:
“my son is gay. He came out to me when he was 22. And I was upset and i blamed myself why is my son gay… i blamed myself all the time. But he is my son. He has not changed since the first day i gave birth to him or the person he is today. I love him for who he is, for what he is. It sickens me that people think suggests that just because he is gay, our family isnt what it is. We are a family. what people do in their private lives shouldnt be an issue to anyone as long as it doesnt harm anyone else. He doesnt know i am doing this but I support this repeal. he is my son and he is not a criminal. if i can accept him, his mother who gave birth to him, who these people who so quickly judge him and condemn him?”
66. A doctor, who signed off only as “criminal doctor”, wrote:
“I'm a doctor. People tell me that's a noble profession. My parents are proud of me. My teachers are proud of me. … But I'm ashamed of myself. Why so? Because I'm gay. … It doesn't matter how many lives I save, it doesn't matter how much suffering I relieve, it doesn't matter how much good I do, it doesn't change one shameful fact. I'm a criminal doctor.”
67. Sir, please bear with me as I quote one last person. Mr Choo questioned the consequences of repealing 377A. He questioned whether, if 377A was abolished, those who supported its retention would suffer. He asked if they would be, and I quote:
“… “living in constant hardship, hysteria, agony and pain, distress and shame, fear of marriage breakdown, upset with public safety and order”, simply due to the knowledge that someone else is legally behaving in what they regard as "gross indecency" in some other bedroom?”
68. Mr Choo went on:
“Let us be honest and look where the tears and the wounds really are.
Talk is cheap, anger is free, but pain is costly. And often such truly divisive laws as s377A cost lives.”
69. And then there are those who leave. If we truly believe that every Singaporean counts, and surely we must when people are our only natural resource, then have we counted the cost of all those who have lost? I will cite only one example, to show how heavy the cost to Singapore can be.
70. Mr Alex Liang e-mailed me a few months back. He is a former Singaporean who renounced his citizenship and is now a UK citizen. By all objective measures, Mr Liang is someone who would have served the country very well.
71. We had invested heavily in him. He received a sports award for 3 years running, and was also a humanities scholar. He represented the nation in gymnastics, receiving generous training allowances. He speaks 8 languages, and had excellent academic results.
72. But the moment he completed National Service, he left for Europe and he stayed there. He had long decided to leave Singapore, as he did not see a viable future for himself in Singapore as a gay man.
73. Sir, I ask again: what price, this effort to “sign-post” the views of the majority?
The majority view
74. Even if we want to signal the majority’s disapproval of homosexuality, we do not need to retain 377A. It can be done through other means. Repealing 377A does not mean that society endorses or approves of homosexuality.
75. Let us learn from the example of the Censorship Review Committee. Its 2003 report noted the distinction between “allowing” and “endorsing”, stating that allowing certain content is quite different from, and should not be misinterpreted as, an endorsement. The same reasoning applies here.
76. In any event, this House should be leading and not following. We should lead by example. We should be doing what is right, fair and just, what is constitutional and keeping in spirit with Singapore’s cherished principles of equality and non-discrimination. We pride ourselves on doing the unpopular but right thing, so why are we abdicating our responsibilities now?
77. Sir, I get a little emotional when I hear the “sign-posting” argument. That is because it claims to sign-post values held by this House and by Singaporeans. It purports to proclaim the values that I, as a Member of this House and as a Singaporean, believe in and want to proclaim.
78. But what are these values? What is this majority view, what does the majority whose values we want to “sign-post” think and say?
79. For that, I turned to the keep377a.com website. It was set up to solicit signatures for an online open letter in support of 377A. Let me just read some of the messages that have been posted on this website...
[Deputy Speaker interrupted to inform me that I had 3 minutes left]
Do the right thing
80. Yes, Sir. Instead of reading the comments, I will just talk about what I feel this House should do.
81. I ask this House to “sign-post” the values of fairness, justice, non-discrimination, openness and inclusiveness, which are values fundamental to a secular democracy. I ask this House to endorse the view that our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different, that ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore, and that we should build a nation where every citizen has a place, where all can live in dignity and harmony. And if those words sound familiar, that is because those were the very words of the Prime Minister in his swearing-in speech in August 2004.
82. These are the right things to do. Some have said that Singapore is not ready, that this is not the right time to repeal 377A.
83. I disagree. I say that there is no wrong time to do the right thing. Now is the time, not to do the pragmatic or practical thing, but to do the right thing.
84. Now is the time, to turn our backs on prejudice, discrimination, intolerance and hatred.
85. Now is the time, for this House, which represents all Singaporeans, to lead by example.
86. Now is the time, to uphold the noble ideals of our founding fathers, ideals upon which our country was founded and which hold our society together. The ideals of a democratic society, based on justice and equality. The ideal of all persons being equal before the law, and all persons having the equal protection of the law.
87. Now is the time, to do the right thing and repeal 377A.
88. Sir, with that, and for all the reasons I have stated in my speech, namely the increase of so many maximum sentences without justification, the retention of the marital rape defence albeit in a limited form, and the failure to repeal 377A, I oppose the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill.
Monday, 22 October 2007
Statement on Petition: 22 October 2007
This is my statement in presenting the petition on Section 377A to Parliament earlier today. And when I said I was going to hand it to the Clerk, well, I literally walked over to hand it over to the Clerk of Parliament.
After I made this statement, the Leader of the House, Mr Mah Bow Tan, moved to suspend the operation of Standing Order 18(3). That allowed the petition to be debated in the course of the debate on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. If not, it would have been referred to the Public Petitions Committee for a report, pending which no debate would have been allowed.
Mr Mah had previously discussed this with me, and I had agreed to the motion. It was simply the most sensible way of approaching it. The petitioners had also earlier indicated their agreement to this.
Mr Speaker Sir, I present to Parliament a petition under Standing Order 18. The Clerk has endorsed this petition as being in accordance with the rules of Standing Order 18(5).
This petition is presented on behalf of Mr George Bonaventure Hwang Chor Chee, Dr Stuart Koe Chi Yeow, Ms Tan Joo Hymn, and others of like opinion.
Including the three petitioners that I have named, there are a total of two thousand, three hundred and forty-one valid signatories.
Sir, the material allegations contained in the petition concern the unconstitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code. If and when the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill is passed, private consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults will be permitted, but the same private and consensual acts between men will remain criminalized, due to the retention of Section 377A.
The petitioners argue that this is an unconstitutional derogation from the constitutional guarantee of equality and equal protection of the law, as set out in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners ask this House to repeal Section 377A in light of this.
The petitioners pray, and I quote:
I will now hand the petition to the Clerk.
After I made this statement, the Leader of the House, Mr Mah Bow Tan, moved to suspend the operation of Standing Order 18(3). That allowed the petition to be debated in the course of the debate on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. If not, it would have been referred to the Public Petitions Committee for a report, pending which no debate would have been allowed.
Mr Mah had previously discussed this with me, and I had agreed to the motion. It was simply the most sensible way of approaching it. The petitioners had also earlier indicated their agreement to this.
Statement on Petition
Mr Speaker Sir, I present to Parliament a petition under Standing Order 18. The Clerk has endorsed this petition as being in accordance with the rules of Standing Order 18(5).
This petition is presented on behalf of Mr George Bonaventure Hwang Chor Chee, Dr Stuart Koe Chi Yeow, Ms Tan Joo Hymn, and others of like opinion.
Including the three petitioners that I have named, there are a total of two thousand, three hundred and forty-one valid signatories.
Sir, the material allegations contained in the petition concern the unconstitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code. If and when the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill is passed, private consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults will be permitted, but the same private and consensual acts between men will remain criminalized, due to the retention of Section 377A.
The petitioners argue that this is an unconstitutional derogation from the constitutional guarantee of equality and equal protection of the law, as set out in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners ask this House to repeal Section 377A in light of this.
The petitioners pray, and I quote:
“By this Petition, the Undersigned pray that Section 377A of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) be repealed.”
I will now hand the petition to the Clerk.
Thursday, 13 September 2007
Penal Code amendments
Parliament will sit next week. I'm working on two speeches, one on the proposed CPF changes and the other on the amendments to the en bloc legislation.
Work has also been a bit tough this past week and will be tough next week as well -- in fact I am quite exhausted thanks to a day-trip to KL today. (Waking up at 4.30am for a 7.10am flight is no joke!)
I'm also involved in some other activities. Plus I just adopted a stray kitten that my girlfriend's colleague's friend found. All in all, I'm beginning to wonder if I've bitten off more than I can chew...
That's why I've not been posting at all. But something landed in my mailbox today. It was a notice paper from Parliament, announcing that the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill will be read for the first time this coming Monday. That means that presumably, the second reading (and the debate on the bill) will take place in October's sitting of Parliament.
I have no clue what the amendment bill will look like. I only know that I will be visiting the Parliament website to download and read the amendment bill, once it gets published there sometime on Monday. I expect it to be big news.
Work has also been a bit tough this past week and will be tough next week as well -- in fact I am quite exhausted thanks to a day-trip to KL today. (Waking up at 4.30am for a 7.10am flight is no joke!)
I'm also involved in some other activities. Plus I just adopted a stray kitten that my girlfriend's colleague's friend found. All in all, I'm beginning to wonder if I've bitten off more than I can chew...
That's why I've not been posting at all. But something landed in my mailbox today. It was a notice paper from Parliament, announcing that the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill will be read for the first time this coming Monday. That means that presumably, the second reading (and the debate on the bill) will take place in October's sitting of Parliament.
I have no clue what the amendment bill will look like. I only know that I will be visiting the Parliament website to download and read the amendment bill, once it gets published there sometime on Monday. I expect it to be big news.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
17 July 2007: Internet crimes
Another supplementary question, this time inspired by something that I read in TODAY by Thomas Koshy. (I forgot the term "sexual grooming", which is why I said "sexual solicitation".) I don't know if this was a coincidence or not, but that piece was published on 24 May 2007, while this particular PQ was filed on 28 May 2007.
I was not convinced by the Minister of State's response. After all, the existing Penal Code criminalises attempts to commit offences. The proposed changes to the Penal Code also intend to criminalise child sex committed overseas, which is something that the Government acknowledged would be difficult to prove but was so important that it was prepared to make law anyway. So why not this?
I also found the reference to the comprehensiveness of the Penal Code ironic. My PQs in May on the proposed Penal Code amendments had elicited responses to the effect that a number of the proposed amendments were being made because of "anecdotal accounts" from the police. I'm sure that if we look, we can find many, many more "anecdotal accounts" of sexual grooming, and certainly I would assume that the public is a lot more concerned about sexual grooming than necrophilia, which is one of the new offences being introduced in the Penal Code. It just doesn't make sense to me.
The overall message must be right -- it's not just about the law, it's a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-pronged solution. But surely having the appropriate laws in place would go a long way towards helping. Here's one case where I believe would-be offenders would be deterred.
Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many girls and women have been victims of sex crimes and/or financial loss from knowing the offenders through the Internet; and (b) will the Ministry consider imposing stiffer penalties on those who prey on young girls through the Internet.
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, there were 124 reported cases of females becoming victims of sex crimes as a result of them knowing the offenders through the Internet between 2001 and 2006. Of these reported cases, 80 cases (or about two-third) involved victims who were below 16 years of age. Of these 124 cases, two of them also involved the victims' property being stolen.
The number of cases of Internet-related sexual crimes forms about 1.5 % of the total number of sexual crimes. Over the years, there has not been any significant increase in the number of Internet-related sexual crimes but, of course, this remains an area of concern as it mainly involves young victims. To address this threat, Police has embarked on several crime intervention actions by working closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and also the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to conduct training sessions, workshops, programmes and crime awareness talk.
The current legal provisions and penalties for these sexual offences are adequate. The penalties for the offence of rape, for example, under the Penal Code carry an imprisonment term of up to 20 years and option of fine and caning. The penalties for the offence of carnal connection (that is, having sexual intercourse with a girl under 16) under the Women's Charter carry an imprisonment term of up to five years and option of fine up to $10,000.
In view of the relatively small number of Internet-related sexual crime cases reported over the years, there is no need to provide for enhanced penalties in existing offences when the offence is committed via the Internet.
Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Sir, just one question. I want to ask the Minister whether the Police act upon tip-off or the victim must really make a Police report before the Police will investigate.
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, there must be information that an offence has been committed in the first place. So, normally, the victim will lodge a Police report and that is when the investigation will proceed.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry has considered introducing a new offence of sexual solicitation which is something that has been done, I understand, in England where a person who solicits sex or sexual activity with a minor would be committing an offence. I think the MOS has mentioned about the provisions which deal with actual sexual conduct, carnal connection and rape, but sexual solicitation would actually nip that in the bud. So I would like to ask the MOS whether that has been considered.
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Our Penal Code review has been a comprehensive one. One of the areas that we have been looking at is sex with minors. This is one area indeed we are considering actively. We are looking at the UK provision - section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on sexual grooming, in other words, if a person chats up a minor and after chatting her up, invites her out, meets her and, thereafter, has sex with her or commits an offence on her - whether we can make that an offence without the actual act of sex having been committed. So it is a matter of drawing the line and scoping it so that the mischief that is being targeted can be addressed sufficiently.
Mdm Cynthia Phua: Sir, before there is a sexual occurrence, there is a potential, like what the Member has said, of solicitation over the Internet, if there is a tip-off, would the Police investigate or unless there is a victim?
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I thank Mdm Cynthia Phua for her Question and also this supplementary question. As I have explained just now, this is something that we are looking at because we know that there have been situations when this has happened and the current law does not adequately address the problem. Because even to attempt an offence, certain overt acts must have been done. So let us see what we can do to placate concerns of the parents. But I must also add that it is not just the law that is at work here. Really, it is a matter of all parties working together. On this score, Dr Lee Boon Yang had given a reply to Mdm Phua a year ago. Indeed, after that reply, MDA has stepped up its activities with the formation of the new Internet and Media Advisory Committee. They have mounted additional campaigns, talks, seminars, guidebooks have been publicised, schools have been reached out to, through various programmes, including cyber crush programmes. So I think parents must take note of what they can do, and hopefully with the laws being strengthened, the situation would improve.
I was not convinced by the Minister of State's response. After all, the existing Penal Code criminalises attempts to commit offences. The proposed changes to the Penal Code also intend to criminalise child sex committed overseas, which is something that the Government acknowledged would be difficult to prove but was so important that it was prepared to make law anyway. So why not this?
I also found the reference to the comprehensiveness of the Penal Code ironic. My PQs in May on the proposed Penal Code amendments had elicited responses to the effect that a number of the proposed amendments were being made because of "anecdotal accounts" from the police. I'm sure that if we look, we can find many, many more "anecdotal accounts" of sexual grooming, and certainly I would assume that the public is a lot more concerned about sexual grooming than necrophilia, which is one of the new offences being introduced in the Penal Code. It just doesn't make sense to me.
The overall message must be right -- it's not just about the law, it's a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-pronged solution. But surely having the appropriate laws in place would go a long way towards helping. Here's one case where I believe would-be offenders would be deterred.
INTERNET CRIMES
(Stiffer penalties on offenders who prey on young girls)
Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many girls and women have been victims of sex crimes and/or financial loss from knowing the offenders through the Internet; and (b) will the Ministry consider imposing stiffer penalties on those who prey on young girls through the Internet.
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, there were 124 reported cases of females becoming victims of sex crimes as a result of them knowing the offenders through the Internet between 2001 and 2006. Of these reported cases, 80 cases (or about two-third) involved victims who were below 16 years of age. Of these 124 cases, two of them also involved the victims' property being stolen.
The number of cases of Internet-related sexual crimes forms about 1.5 % of the total number of sexual crimes. Over the years, there has not been any significant increase in the number of Internet-related sexual crimes but, of course, this remains an area of concern as it mainly involves young victims. To address this threat, Police has embarked on several crime intervention actions by working closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and also the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to conduct training sessions, workshops, programmes and crime awareness talk.
The current legal provisions and penalties for these sexual offences are adequate. The penalties for the offence of rape, for example, under the Penal Code carry an imprisonment term of up to 20 years and option of fine and caning. The penalties for the offence of carnal connection (that is, having sexual intercourse with a girl under 16) under the Women's Charter carry an imprisonment term of up to five years and option of fine up to $10,000.
In view of the relatively small number of Internet-related sexual crime cases reported over the years, there is no need to provide for enhanced penalties in existing offences when the offence is committed via the Internet.
Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Sir, just one question. I want to ask the Minister whether the Police act upon tip-off or the victim must really make a Police report before the Police will investigate.
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, there must be information that an offence has been committed in the first place. So, normally, the victim will lodge a Police report and that is when the investigation will proceed.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry has considered introducing a new offence of sexual solicitation which is something that has been done, I understand, in England where a person who solicits sex or sexual activity with a minor would be committing an offence. I think the MOS has mentioned about the provisions which deal with actual sexual conduct, carnal connection and rape, but sexual solicitation would actually nip that in the bud. So I would like to ask the MOS whether that has been considered.
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Our Penal Code review has been a comprehensive one. One of the areas that we have been looking at is sex with minors. This is one area indeed we are considering actively. We are looking at the UK provision - section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on sexual grooming, in other words, if a person chats up a minor and after chatting her up, invites her out, meets her and, thereafter, has sex with her or commits an offence on her - whether we can make that an offence without the actual act of sex having been committed. So it is a matter of drawing the line and scoping it so that the mischief that is being targeted can be addressed sufficiently.
Mdm Cynthia Phua: Sir, before there is a sexual occurrence, there is a potential, like what the Member has said, of solicitation over the Internet, if there is a tip-off, would the Police investigate or unless there is a victim?
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I thank Mdm Cynthia Phua for her Question and also this supplementary question. As I have explained just now, this is something that we are looking at because we know that there have been situations when this has happened and the current law does not adequately address the problem. Because even to attempt an offence, certain overt acts must have been done. So let us see what we can do to placate concerns of the parents. But I must also add that it is not just the law that is at work here. Really, it is a matter of all parties working together. On this score, Dr Lee Boon Yang had given a reply to Mdm Phua a year ago. Indeed, after that reply, MDA has stepped up its activities with the formation of the new Internet and Media Advisory Committee. They have mounted additional campaigns, talks, seminars, guidebooks have been publicised, schools have been reached out to, through various programmes, including cyber crush programmes. So I think parents must take note of what they can do, and hopefully with the laws being strengthened, the situation would improve.
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Fridae coverage on THAT forum
Here is Fridae's report on the forum on Sunday. There was also a Talkback segment this morning on 938Live about the decriminalisation of homosexuality, where I gave a quote, but the podcast hasn't gone up yet.
Forum on Section 377A
I was invited to be a panellist at a forum titled "Peculiar Legislation: 377(A) – Symbol or Statute?", organised by local theatre company W!ld Rice on Sunday. There was a fair bit of news coverage on it -- I have reproduced the TODAY article (front page, no less) below, and CNA and The Straits Times also ran stories. I understand that the forum was also covered on TV news on Sunday, although I didn't catch that since I was at a wedding dinner.
I think I probably said some things at the forum that may not have gone down well with much of the audience, and certainly not with the gay panellists. And that was my view that an argument based on civil liberties will not bring about change, and that an economic argument may be the only effective way of convincing the Government to repeal Section 377A. So I think it's important to clarify and amplify.
Firstly, during the discussion, I made it a point to emphasise that I agreed with the points on civil liberties made by the other panellists, in particular Alex Au. I have made similar points on civil liberties before, on this blog, on radio and elsewhere. In fact, that is fundamentally why I am opposed to Section 377A.
However, given that the entire audience indicated -- in response to the moderator's question -- that they believed Section 377A should be repealed, I thought that was pretty much a given, and didn't need to be repeated. The civil liberties argument is just the fundamental principle underpinning this entire issue.
But that's the principle. What about the tactics to achieve the goal of repealing Section 377A? How do we get there from here?
If I recall right, someone in the audience asked what can be done, and I responded by raising the economic argument. The TODAY article does a pretty good job of stating it. I truly do believe that a strong economic argument is the only way to get the Government to move on Section 377A in the near-future, and that an argument based purely on civil liberties will get us nowhere. After all, has it gotten us anywhere so far?
That seemed to offend Alex Au and Stuart Koe. And I understand why. Who would want to win by being demeaned, by being reduced to a digit? Sometimes the costs of a victory can outweigh the benefits.
But I wasn't there to parrot the same crowd-pleasing lines about freedom and rights and civil liberties. Like I said, I felt that was a given. And I wanted to make an observation about the political realities in Singapore, about what would work and what wouldn't. So I did.
I believe that to win the argument, one has to make a convincing economic argument. It will probably also be necessary to debunk the idea that the majority of Singaporeans want private, consensual gay sex to be criminalised, which is where I suggested the need for a survey to assess the true views of Singaporeans. I certainly at no point advocated rule by referendum, as may have been suggested. But if the Government insists that the majority of Singaporeans believe that private, consensual gay sex should be criminalised (and I am not aware of any statistically valid survey to that effect -- the TODAY survey suffered from certain flaws), then it is incumbent on the Government to prove that this is in fact the case.
In any case, sticking to a pure civil liberties argument will not lead to change. That is a cynical view of the state of affairs in Singapore, but I think it is sadly true. If the gay community understands the implications of , but decides to persist with that course because it is the right thing to do, then more power to them. That is entirely their prerogative, and the principled stand is to be respected. But they should understand that realistically, Section 377A will continue to stay with us for quite a long time more if that is to be the case.
I do believe that I will see it being repealed in my lifetime. But I am young, and probably have 40-50 years to go. I think that in the absence of the economic argument, I will see that happening later in my life rather than sooner.
Having said all that, I've been reflecting on this over the past couple of days. And I've decided that if/when the Penal Code amendments are tabled, and Section 377A is not to be repealed (as I believe will be the case), then I will not make an economic argument. This is out of respect for the sensibilities of the gay community. In any case, by that stage, the die would have been cast anyway.
On Section 377A ...
Forum on gay law well-attended, but change unlikely: MPs
Monday • July 16, 2007
Nazry Bahrawi
THE room was packed, the panellists were passionate and the questions came fast and furious.
This was the mood yesterday as over 200 people gathered to discuss a hot issue — should homosexuality remain outlawed here?
Leading the discussion, organised by local theatre company W!ld Rice at the National Library, were an eclectic mix of five individuals: MP (Tanjong Pagar GRC) Baey Yam Keng; Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong; gay activist Alex Au; CEO of gay community website Fridae.com, Dr Stuart Koe; and Reverend Dr Yap Kim Hao, a former Methodist bishop who serves on the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) council.
Although Section 377A, which criminalises homosexual acts, may come up for debate in Parliament as part of the Penal Code changes, for two panellists at least, the prospect that it would be repealed any time soon seems highly unlikely.
Said Mr Baey: "Personally, I think the whip should be lifted for a very open debate and open expression of opinion by the MPs. And if that was so, I would vote for a repeal of the act. From my understanding of my parliamentary colleagues, my guess is that I will be in the minority."
However, Mr Siew told the audience — most of whom indicated during the forum that they wanted Section 377A repealed — that the battle was not to convince the naysayers, but those who are undecided about whether homosexuality should be decriminalised.
The NMP said change would only be possible "once you get that mass, enough people in the middle, to agree with you", but added: "I don't think we're at that point."
Mr Siew cited a heartland survey published in May by Today, in which 62.3 per cent of 300 respondents disagreed that homosexuality should be legal. "That shows that a clear majority are saying that homosexuality of people is not acceptable to them."
But even if more people were to support decriminalisation, that may not be enough.
Said Mr Baey: "From what I understand about how the Government works, I don't think the Government will be making a decision based on a survey ... The Government will want to make its own stand and position on issues like this, and for this it requires a mindset shift."
And to change mindsets, "you've got to frame it in a lingo that will convince the Government", Mr Siew suggested.
"And what's that lingo? I think we all know. It's all about growth, jobs, money. If you can make a convincing case that 377A is somehow affecting that, I think you've got a really good chance."
He acknowledged that changing the laws on homosexuality would put Malay/Muslim MPs in a difficult position with their community.
But it is not just the Muslims who feel strongly about the issue.
Reverend Dr Yap said that within the Christian faith in Singapore there was a "minority which is vocal" which strongly opposes any move to repeal the Act.
Mr Au, however, argued that the debate on Section 377A was not one of religion, but civil rights.
In response, Mr Siew pointed out: "Pitching your arguments in terms of civil rights ... will not take it very far."
His suggestion of linking the decriminalisation of homosexual acts to economic benefits drew a range of responses from the audience — as well as other panellists, including Mr Koe, who said he would feel insulted if the decision were to depend on dollars and cents.
Whatever their stand, almost everyone present agreed that such a forum would not have been possible five years ago — a sign that Singapore is now a lot more open to different points of view.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
I think I probably said some things at the forum that may not have gone down well with much of the audience, and certainly not with the gay panellists. And that was my view that an argument based on civil liberties will not bring about change, and that an economic argument may be the only effective way of convincing the Government to repeal Section 377A. So I think it's important to clarify and amplify.
Firstly, during the discussion, I made it a point to emphasise that I agreed with the points on civil liberties made by the other panellists, in particular Alex Au. I have made similar points on civil liberties before, on this blog, on radio and elsewhere. In fact, that is fundamentally why I am opposed to Section 377A.
However, given that the entire audience indicated -- in response to the moderator's question -- that they believed Section 377A should be repealed, I thought that was pretty much a given, and didn't need to be repeated. The civil liberties argument is just the fundamental principle underpinning this entire issue.
But that's the principle. What about the tactics to achieve the goal of repealing Section 377A? How do we get there from here?
If I recall right, someone in the audience asked what can be done, and I responded by raising the economic argument. The TODAY article does a pretty good job of stating it. I truly do believe that a strong economic argument is the only way to get the Government to move on Section 377A in the near-future, and that an argument based purely on civil liberties will get us nowhere. After all, has it gotten us anywhere so far?
That seemed to offend Alex Au and Stuart Koe. And I understand why. Who would want to win by being demeaned, by being reduced to a digit? Sometimes the costs of a victory can outweigh the benefits.
But I wasn't there to parrot the same crowd-pleasing lines about freedom and rights and civil liberties. Like I said, I felt that was a given. And I wanted to make an observation about the political realities in Singapore, about what would work and what wouldn't. So I did.
I believe that to win the argument, one has to make a convincing economic argument. It will probably also be necessary to debunk the idea that the majority of Singaporeans want private, consensual gay sex to be criminalised, which is where I suggested the need for a survey to assess the true views of Singaporeans. I certainly at no point advocated rule by referendum, as may have been suggested. But if the Government insists that the majority of Singaporeans believe that private, consensual gay sex should be criminalised (and I am not aware of any statistically valid survey to that effect -- the TODAY survey suffered from certain flaws), then it is incumbent on the Government to prove that this is in fact the case.
In any case, sticking to a pure civil liberties argument will not lead to change. That is a cynical view of the state of affairs in Singapore, but I think it is sadly true. If the gay community understands the implications of , but decides to persist with that course because it is the right thing to do, then more power to them. That is entirely their prerogative, and the principled stand is to be respected. But they should understand that realistically, Section 377A will continue to stay with us for quite a long time more if that is to be the case.
I do believe that I will see it being repealed in my lifetime. But I am young, and probably have 40-50 years to go. I think that in the absence of the economic argument, I will see that happening later in my life rather than sooner.
Having said all that, I've been reflecting on this over the past couple of days. And I've decided that if/when the Penal Code amendments are tabled, and Section 377A is not to be repealed (as I believe will be the case), then I will not make an economic argument. This is out of respect for the sensibilities of the gay community. In any case, by that stage, the die would have been cast anyway.
On Section 377A ...
Forum on gay law well-attended, but change unlikely: MPs
Monday • July 16, 2007
Nazry Bahrawi
THE room was packed, the panellists were passionate and the questions came fast and furious.
This was the mood yesterday as over 200 people gathered to discuss a hot issue — should homosexuality remain outlawed here?
Leading the discussion, organised by local theatre company W!ld Rice at the National Library, were an eclectic mix of five individuals: MP (Tanjong Pagar GRC) Baey Yam Keng; Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong; gay activist Alex Au; CEO of gay community website Fridae.com, Dr Stuart Koe; and Reverend Dr Yap Kim Hao, a former Methodist bishop who serves on the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) council.
Although Section 377A, which criminalises homosexual acts, may come up for debate in Parliament as part of the Penal Code changes, for two panellists at least, the prospect that it would be repealed any time soon seems highly unlikely.
Said Mr Baey: "Personally, I think the whip should be lifted for a very open debate and open expression of opinion by the MPs. And if that was so, I would vote for a repeal of the act. From my understanding of my parliamentary colleagues, my guess is that I will be in the minority."
However, Mr Siew told the audience — most of whom indicated during the forum that they wanted Section 377A repealed — that the battle was not to convince the naysayers, but those who are undecided about whether homosexuality should be decriminalised.
The NMP said change would only be possible "once you get that mass, enough people in the middle, to agree with you", but added: "I don't think we're at that point."
Mr Siew cited a heartland survey published in May by Today, in which 62.3 per cent of 300 respondents disagreed that homosexuality should be legal. "That shows that a clear majority are saying that homosexuality of people is not acceptable to them."
But even if more people were to support decriminalisation, that may not be enough.
Said Mr Baey: "From what I understand about how the Government works, I don't think the Government will be making a decision based on a survey ... The Government will want to make its own stand and position on issues like this, and for this it requires a mindset shift."
And to change mindsets, "you've got to frame it in a lingo that will convince the Government", Mr Siew suggested.
"And what's that lingo? I think we all know. It's all about growth, jobs, money. If you can make a convincing case that 377A is somehow affecting that, I think you've got a really good chance."
He acknowledged that changing the laws on homosexuality would put Malay/Muslim MPs in a difficult position with their community.
But it is not just the Muslims who feel strongly about the issue.
Reverend Dr Yap said that within the Christian faith in Singapore there was a "minority which is vocal" which strongly opposes any move to repeal the Act.
Mr Au, however, argued that the debate on Section 377A was not one of religion, but civil rights.
In response, Mr Siew pointed out: "Pitching your arguments in terms of civil rights ... will not take it very far."
His suggestion of linking the decriminalisation of homosexual acts to economic benefits drew a range of responses from the audience — as well as other panellists, including Mr Koe, who said he would feel insulted if the decision were to depend on dollars and cents.
Whatever their stand, almost everyone present agreed that such a forum would not have been possible five years ago — a sign that Singapore is now a lot more open to different points of view.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Questions for Written Answers: 21 and 22 May 2007 (on proposed Penal Code amendments)
For the May sittings, I filed a whole bunch of questions on the proposed Penal Code amendments. I wanted to shed some light on a couple of areas:
- Given the police's repeated statements that it does not proactively enforce Section 377A of the Penal Code, exactly how many convictions have there been under it in recent years. Since I received the answer, Alex Au has raised the interesting suggestion that Section 377A is actually being used to prosecute men who abuse male minors.
- Whether the proposals to amend defences and/or raise maximum jail sentences for various offences are justified.
My questions attempted to tease out the information relevant to each area. I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about the responses, and the process undertaken by the authorities when formulating the Penal Code amendments. I will only say that when I had previously sought to rely on anecdotal evidence on more than one occasion, that was dismissed as being, well, anecdotal.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, in each of the last ten years, (a) how many prosecutions and convictions have there been under section 377A of the Penal Code; (b) how many of these prosecutions were police prosecutions; and (c) how many of these police prosecutions were the result of proactive police enforcement.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: The statistics on the number of persons convicted under section 377A (Outrages on decency) of the Penal Code, between 1997 and 2006 is shown below. Prosecution statistics are not available. Police does not proactively enforce the provision.
- Given the police's repeated statements that it does not proactively enforce Section 377A of the Penal Code, exactly how many convictions have there been under it in recent years. Since I received the answer, Alex Au has raised the interesting suggestion that Section 377A is actually being used to prosecute men who abuse male minors.
- Whether the proposals to amend defences and/or raise maximum jail sentences for various offences are justified.
My questions attempted to tease out the information relevant to each area. I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about the responses, and the process undertaken by the authorities when formulating the Penal Code amendments. I will only say that when I had previously sought to rely on anecdotal evidence on more than one occasion, that was dismissed as being, well, anecdotal.
21 May 2007
PROSECUTIONS UNDER PENAL CODE
(Section 377A)
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, in each of the last ten years, (a) how many prosecutions and convictions have there been under section 377A of the Penal Code; (b) how many of these prosecutions were police prosecutions; and (c) how many of these police prosecutions were the result of proactive police enforcement.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: The statistics on the number of persons convicted under section 377A (Outrages on decency) of the Penal Code, between 1997 and 2006 is shown below. Prosecution statistics are not available. Police does not proactively enforce the provision.
No. of persons convicted under Section 377A
| 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
| 25 | 16 | 31 | 30 | 23 | 25 | 11 | 13 | 4 | 7 |
22 May 2007
SEXUAL OFFENCES WITH MINORS
(Investigations)
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs for each of the last ten years (a) how many cases were investigated by the police involving allegations of sexual intercourse between a female minor and a male who was below the age of 21 years where the male claimed to have reasonable cause to believe that the minor was above (i) 16 years and (ii) 18 years; and (b) of these cases, how many were not the first case against that male.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Under section 140(5) of the Women's Charter, the presence of reasonable cause to believe that the girl was above the age of 16 years shall be a valid defence on the first occasion on which he is charged with an offence of carnal connection under section 140 (1)(i).
We do not actively track the breakdown of the number of cases where the defence of mistaking the age of the victim was invoked. From anecdotal accounts, it is not common for accused persons to use mistaking the age of victims as a defence for their sexual offences.
POLICE INVESTIGATIONS
(Section 376 of Penal Code)
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs for each of the last ten years, how many cases were investigated by the police involving allegations of an offence under section 376 of the Penal Code where the person alleged to have committed an offence (i) intentionally deceived the victim as to the nature of the acts in question; and (ii) intentionally induced the victim to consent to those acts by impersonating a person known to the victim.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Rape cases where deception was used in the course of committing the offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code are not separately noted and recorded. Nevertheless, based on anecdotal accounts, cases where accused persons had intentionally deceived the victims into sexual intercourse or intentionally induced the victims to consent to sexual intercourse by impersonating a person known to the victims, are not common. This is backed by what can be culled from the compilation of facts in the preliminary reports submitted by the Investigation Officers when rape cases are reported.
PROSECUTIONS UNDER PENAL CODE
(Section 143)
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs for each of the last ten years (a) how many convictions were there for offences under section 143 of the Penal Code; and (b) of these, how many were sentenced to imprisonment and how many were sentenced to 5 or more months of imprisonment.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: The number of persons convicted, imprisoned and those who were sentenced to 5 months imprisonment or more under Section 143 (Punishment for unlawful assembly) of the Penal Code, for the last 10 years (1997 to 2006), is provided in the table below.
No. of persons convicted, imprisoned and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment or more under Section 143 of the Penal Code
| 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |
| No. of persons convicted | 571 | 453 | 486 | 254 | 217 | 242 | 347 | 295 | 234 | 272 |
| Imprisoned | 121 | 123 | 128 | 113 | 86 | 128 | 146 | 97 | 72 | 92 |
| 5 months imprisonment or more | 24 | 8 | 3 | 15 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 21 | 11 | 3 |
PROPOSED PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL
(Increase in Maximum Sentences)
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, in view of the proposed Penal Code (Amendment) Bill issued for public consultation in November 2006 which proposes to increase the maximum sentences for certain offences as set out in the Schedule to the Bill, for each of the last ten years, (a) how many convictions have there been for each of those offences; (b) how many involved sentences of imprisonment; and (d) how many sentences were at 80% or more of the maximum duration of imprisonment permitted.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: The overall aim of the punishment framework is to reduce crime, protect society and maintain law and order. Several factors are taken into account in proposals to increase the maximum imprisonment terms of offences in the Penal Code.
The number and trend of convictions for each offence is only one of these factors. Indeed, this number may fluctuate from year to year in line with the overall crime rates for any particular year.
Also, it is not meaningful to base our decision whether to increase the maximum imprisonment terms on the number of sentences in the past which have hit 80% or more of the maximum sentences. Taking such an approach would disregard the facts and circumstances of the case which the Judge would have taken into account in considering what is the appropriate sentence to be meted out.
Apart from the number and trend of convictions for each offence, the other considerations taken into account in deciding on the maximum sentences are:
a. Punishment should reflect the severity of the offence and serve as a deterrent;
b. The need to maintain proportionality between the offence and the punishment;
c. The type and quantum of punishment should provide sufficient flexibility to our Courts to mete out an appropriate sentence in a particular case, rather than to amend the law to adjust the punishment every now and then;
d. The need to maintain relativity in the punishment for related offences within the Penal Code;
e. The need to maintain relativity in the punishment for similar offences covered under different statutes;
f. The need to retain mandatory minimum punishment and to abolish it where it is no longer necessary to retain them; and
g. The need to reduce the gap between 10 years or life imprisonment for double-limb penalty provisions;
As for the specific details requested for, the Police does not have such ready statistics in the form requested.
Monday, 7 May 2007
Response from Asst Prof Yvonne Lee
I posted a response to a Straits Times commentary arguing against the decriminalisation of homosexual sex. This afternoon, I received a letter from the writer, essentially making the following points:
She finished off by stating:
I would have reproduced the full letter on this blog, except that I have not received any response from the writer to my request for her consent to post it here. (The letter is technically copyrighted work belonging to her and reproduction here may or may not constitute a fair dealing of the copyright work, so I just decided to avoid that altogether.)
My response:
As I said, I've not received any response. I'll leave it to my readers to judge for themselves the cogency of her arguments, and whether my statements are justified/fair independent of my personal views.
- her article is to highlight issues relevant to the debate over Section 377A;
- the cogency of her arguments stand independent of the personal views of the reader; and
- the Government will "address and resolve" all legal and policy issues "in due course", presumably in the context of the upcoming Penal Code amendments.
She finished off by stating:
"Kindly refrain from making personal or professional statements against me. It is both unprofessional and unbecoming."
I would have reproduced the full letter on this blog, except that I have not received any response from the writer to my request for her consent to post it here. (The letter is technically copyrighted work belonging to her and reproduction here may or may not constitute a fair dealing of the copyright work, so I just decided to avoid that altogether.)
My response:
"Asst Prof Lee,
I stand by my posting. I believe it is justified and/or fair comment. I suppose we disagree on that.
On a related note, would you consent to the letter being published on my blog?"
As I said, I've not received any response. I'll leave it to my readers to judge for themselves the cogency of her arguments, and whether my statements are justified/fair independent of my personal views.
Saturday, 5 May 2007
Opinion on 938 Live, and ill-reasoned commentary
I did a radio interview yesterday morning, for the Opinion programme on 938 Live. It was "live", from 9 to 10am. The focus was on how Singapore can maintain its competitiveness, with specific talking points on MM's recent comments about homosexuality and censorship (I am forced to link to Yawning Bread because that seems to contain the most complete reproduction of MM's comments on censorship -- albeit with Alex Au's editorialising -- currently available for free online).
The show was quite fun to do. The other two panellists -- Dr Kirpal Singh of SMU and Mr Phillip Overmyer of the SICC -- were smart and funny. There is no podcast as yet -- the producer has promised to let me know if/when a podcast is published, or to send me an MP3 if there will be no podcast. There will however be a repeat tomorrow (Sunday) at 11am on 938 Live.
I have to thank the various kind people who responded to my request for assistance to prepare for this interview. I had asked for information on Singaporeans' attitudes towards homosexuality, and received quite a bit of very helpful information. In particular, I must thank Alex Au and George Hwang.
In the end, because of the overall theme, the direction taken during the discussion and time constraints, I didn't manage to use a lot of it. Nevertheless, I know it will be helpful when I prepare for the debate on the proposed Penal Code amendments. (Indeed, I have relied quite a bit on this information in what I write below.)
And that actually takes me to yesterday's commentary in The Straits Times arguing against the decriminalisation of gay sex. My personal belief is that regardless of whether homosexuality/lesbianism/bisexuality/transsexuality is nature or nurture, GLBTs should be left to their personal choices and their own devices, so long as their actions do not result in external harm.
And that is really my own philosophy on how the law should regulate personal behaviour -- everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as there is no external harm. So I disagree with those who argue that gay sex should remain a criminal offence.
But I can appreciate a well-reasoned argument even if I disagree with the premise and conclusion, and I can dislike a poorly-reasoned one even if the premise and conclusion are consistent with my own beliefs. I was literally offended that The Straits Times saw fit to give this piece precious commentary space, because it had to be one of the most poorly-written articles to ever be printed.
The argument started off talking about the prohibition against discrimination in the Constitution. The writer explained the legal operation of this prohibition, and stated that laws that discriminate between classes of people are constitutionally valid if: (a) the classification had a rational basis, and (b) the law had to serve a legitimate purpose which is reasonably related to the basis for the classification. The writer also added that each differentiating legal measure served a social objective, and that Parliament was permitted to pass laws that promote the public good over the rights of individuals or goods.
I didn't have a problem with this so far. But after laying out the legal groundwork, the writer went off on a completely different tangent. Instead of showing how Section 377A of the Penal Code (which criminalises gay sex) satisfied that two-pronged test, she merely asserts:
There was no attempt at explaining why the classification of homosexuals as a class to be regulated is rational, or why it is rational to criminalise gay sex but not lesbian sex. There was no statement as to what the public good was in relation to the criminalisation of consensual private sexual acts, albeit between men.
The only attempt at explaining the legitimate purpose to be served was the reference to the "known medical fact" about the alleged higher risks of STDs in homosexual intercourse. To be polite, it is counter-intuitive and unconvincing, to say the least, to assert that male-male anal sex is inherently more likely to transmit STDs than male-female anal sex, the decriminalisation of which the writer apparently does not disagree with. There was also no clarification as to whether this asserted medical fact relates to protected or unprotected sex.
The conclusion in that paragraph, that the law should not facilitate acts which threaten public health, also does not make sense. Firstly, it pre-supposes that repeal of Section 377A will somehow make it easier for gays to have sex (since that is what facilitate means). But the Government itself has repeatedly and openly stated that it will not proactively enforce Section 377A. Let's not delude ourselves, gay men are having gay sex. That is going to continue happening regardless of whether Section 377A is in place.
The debate over Section 377A is not about what gay men are doing or are not doing. It is really about the message that society should send to homosexuals, and some may argue other disenfranchised minorities in society as well. The Government itself, in its proposal to preserve Section 377A, admits as much. So that conclusion is (whether deliberately or otherwise) misleading in its suggestion that the repeal of Section 377A will somehow make it easier for gays to have sex, which naturally also suggests that there will be more gay sex.
Secondly, even if, for argument's sake, we accept that gay sex is indeed a public health risk, there is no attempt to explain why we should specifically criminalise this public health risk but not others. Why not criminalise unprotected sex with unlicensed prostitutes in Singapore, or with prostitutes overseas? What about other non-sexual risks that do affect other people, such as smoking?
My recollection is that the numerical majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers in Singapore were infected through unprotected sex overseas, presumably with prostitutes, as opposed to homosexuals. So if we are willing to criminalise overseas child sex (which addresses the extraterritorial issue), then why not overseas unprotected sex with prostitutes?
Either the writer took all of her leaps of logic as granted and self-evident (which speaks volumes about the unstated assumptions in her mind), or perhaps there is really no convincing manner in which one can successfully apply the two-pronged test of constitutionality to Section 377A and so she conveniently ignored all of it and sought to pass off mere assertions as reasoned arguments.
She concluded the first part of the piece by arguing that:
Now, in the first place, to me, equality is actually a fundamental value that serves the public good. It must be, and that is why it is enshrined in the Constitution.
Furthermore, there are other fundamental values serving the public good, that are adversely affected by Section 377A. The Law Society has rightly pointed out that continuing to keep a law on the books, that the Government has openly stated it will not proactively enforce, brings the law into disrepute. And inclusiveness is a word that is bandied about a lot, and Section 377A is a classic case of how society is deliberately, loudly and very conspicuously excluding a segment of society.
The writer seems to perceive the criminalisation of homosexual sex to be fundamentally in the public interest. It would have been helpful if there was even an iota of explanation as to why.
In the second part of her article, the writer then went on to talk about recent developments in foreign jurisdictions, about decriminalisation of gay sex as the first step in a "broader homosexual rights agenda to transform social morality". And here is where she betrays her real agenda.
This article is not about the legality or justifiability of homosexual sex per se. It is actually a Trojan horse that uses the debate over Section 377A as a vehicle to argue homosexuality per se.
I do not propose to rebut the writer's point-by-point construction of the alleged homosexual agenda one by one. I will only say that in my view, it makes sense only if one accepts and believes that homosexuality is inherently wrong and should be outlawed, and homosexuals should be excluded, disenfranchised and discriminated against.
I don't agree with that. But that is her premise, and she is entitled to her beliefs. Even though I disagree with it, I must say that, on the whole, the arguments in this part are much better-constructed than in the preceding section.
Having said that, logical rigour would seem to demand that the writer explain why, if homosexuality itself is so against the public interest, we should criminalise only homosexual sex and not other aspects of homosexuality. We all know of gay bars and clubs in Singapore, and even Mardi Gras events with prominent homosexual involvement. So why criminalise only the sexual expression of homosexuality?
Furthermore, I am sure that there are many other agendas that some or many people would believe to be contrary to the public good. So should we also criminalise acts related to such agendas? The writer does not explain what is so abhorrent or offensive about homosexuality that compels us to criminalise gay sex.
In any event, once she finishes her description of the alleged homosexual agenda, the writer lapses back into assertion-as-reasoning. She writes:
The fact is that moral attitudes are probably already shifting. A Singapore Polytechnic study earlier this year shows that a large proportion of young people (half, if it is to be believed) nowadays accept homosexuality. A NTU study to be published soon found a correlation between youth and acceptance of homosexuality. Alex Au's analysis (which I agree with) suggests a dramatic trend towards acceptance within a relatively short period.
So whether or not Section 377A is repealed, the times they are a'changin', to quote Bob Dylan. So it is misleading to attribute any change in moral attitudes to the repeal of Section 377A.
Furthermore, this argument pre-supposes that moral attitudes, and in particular moral attitudes towards homosexuality, are fixed and always correct. That must be the underlying assumption, otherwise why should it be a problem for moral attitudes towards homosexuality to change? (In the interests of full disclosure and transparency, I admit that I am, for the most part, a moral relativist.)
But once upon a time, people held the view that it was immoral for women to work. Those views have since changed. I will leave it to you to decide if that was for better or worse.
She went on to state:
I am not sure why any such campaign (if there is indeed such a campaign in Singapore) is relevant to the question of whether to criminalise Section 377A, which is what the commentary purports to be about. It is also not clear why the analogy between adulterous and homosexuals is fallacious simply because (assuming this to be true for argument's sake) homosexuals publicly attempt to advance their agenda. This seems to me be a red herring.
In the next paragraph, the writer commits perhaps her worst error:
This is the worst error because it is a factual error. Section 377A explicitly does not differentiate between public and private acts. The Government does not propose to change Section 377A. The Government itself acknowledges that the law will technically continue to apply to gay sex in private.
What the writer seems to be alluding to is the Government's declaration that it will not proactively enforce Section 377A. But that is not the point. The fact is that homosexuals leading their lives, whether or not they have gay sex in public or in private, are technically breaking the law. So either the writer was mistaken, or she was deliberately misleading the reader. I am not sure which bothers me more, given that the writer is a law professor in NUS.
The writer's next statement is:
But this merely asserts the constitutionality of Section 377A, nevermind that her discussion on that issue was full of assertions and lacking in reasoning. Saying it often enough does not make it right or logical.
The writer concludes by stating:
The first sentence is factually correct -- the NTU study I referred to confirms it. But conventional legal theory states that offensiveness, in and of itself, is not good enough reason make something a crime. Indeed, I can think of plenty of offensive behaviour (cutting queues and inconsiderate driving, for starters) that is not illegal. Furthermore, allowing moral majorities in and of themselves to dictate laws seems to me to be a big stride down the road to intolerance, discrimination and persecution.
The next sentence is factually incorrect. It suggests that only homosexuals are pushing for repeal of Section 377A. That is completely wrong. I am straight, and I oppose Section 377A. I know many people who are straight, who also oppose Section 377A.
Furthermore, and here I expect to attract some controversy (but I will push on anyway), I want to ask whether there is an aggressive religious agenda to dictate law-making in this area. The NTU study found a strong correlation between certain religions (specifically, Christianity and Islam) and opposition to homosexuality. Indeed, MM himself also alluded to this.
I am an atheist. I strongly object to allowing an aggressive religious agenda of one or two religions to dictate law reform (in the case, the lack thereof). That ignores the nature of Singapore's multireligious, multiracial community, which includes atheists, agnostics, Hindus and Buddhists. Such an agenda is divisive.
And so, I would invite those who assert homosexual agendas to declare their own agendas, openly and transparently.
I am not sure what I was more disappointed with: the thrust of the article, the poor (sometimes non-existent) reasoning, or the fact that The Straits Times chose to publish it and to give it such prominence. But I do know that I was immensely disappointed that this piece was written by an assistant professor in the NUS Law Faculty, who also teaches constitutional law. She may know the law, but she has not, in this piece, demonstrated the ability to apply it.
I was really upset when I read it. As a self-confessed liberal, I accept the right of others to hold their own opinions. That comes with the territory. But I do find such poorly-reasoned attempts at arguments terribly offensive. And that is why I decided to write such a long response to it.
The show was quite fun to do. The other two panellists -- Dr Kirpal Singh of SMU and Mr Phillip Overmyer of the SICC -- were smart and funny. There is no podcast as yet -- the producer has promised to let me know if/when a podcast is published, or to send me an MP3 if there will be no podcast. There will however be a repeat tomorrow (Sunday) at 11am on 938 Live.
I have to thank the various kind people who responded to my request for assistance to prepare for this interview. I had asked for information on Singaporeans' attitudes towards homosexuality, and received quite a bit of very helpful information. In particular, I must thank Alex Au and George Hwang.
In the end, because of the overall theme, the direction taken during the discussion and time constraints, I didn't manage to use a lot of it. Nevertheless, I know it will be helpful when I prepare for the debate on the proposed Penal Code amendments. (Indeed, I have relied quite a bit on this information in what I write below.)
*
And that actually takes me to yesterday's commentary in The Straits Times arguing against the decriminalisation of gay sex. My personal belief is that regardless of whether homosexuality/lesbianism/bisexuality/transsexuality is nature or nurture, GLBTs should be left to their personal choices and their own devices, so long as their actions do not result in external harm.
And that is really my own philosophy on how the law should regulate personal behaviour -- everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as there is no external harm. So I disagree with those who argue that gay sex should remain a criminal offence.
But I can appreciate a well-reasoned argument even if I disagree with the premise and conclusion, and I can dislike a poorly-reasoned one even if the premise and conclusion are consistent with my own beliefs. I was literally offended that The Straits Times saw fit to give this piece precious commentary space, because it had to be one of the most poorly-written articles to ever be printed.
The argument started off talking about the prohibition against discrimination in the Constitution. The writer explained the legal operation of this prohibition, and stated that laws that discriminate between classes of people are constitutionally valid if: (a) the classification had a rational basis, and (b) the law had to serve a legitimate purpose which is reasonably related to the basis for the classification. The writer also added that each differentiating legal measure served a social objective, and that Parliament was permitted to pass laws that promote the public good over the rights of individuals or goods.
I didn't have a problem with this so far. But after laying out the legal groundwork, the writer went off on a completely different tangent. Instead of showing how Section 377A of the Penal Code (which criminalises gay sex) satisfied that two-pronged test, she merely asserts:
"Any argument to decriminalise homosexual sex must consider the harmful social consequences. For example, would affirming homosexual sexual practices serve the common good? It is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections. The law should not facilitate acts which threaten public health."
There was no attempt at explaining why the classification of homosexuals as a class to be regulated is rational, or why it is rational to criminalise gay sex but not lesbian sex. There was no statement as to what the public good was in relation to the criminalisation of consensual private sexual acts, albeit between men.
The only attempt at explaining the legitimate purpose to be served was the reference to the "known medical fact" about the alleged higher risks of STDs in homosexual intercourse. To be polite, it is counter-intuitive and unconvincing, to say the least, to assert that male-male anal sex is inherently more likely to transmit STDs than male-female anal sex, the decriminalisation of which the writer apparently does not disagree with. There was also no clarification as to whether this asserted medical fact relates to protected or unprotected sex.
The conclusion in that paragraph, that the law should not facilitate acts which threaten public health, also does not make sense. Firstly, it pre-supposes that repeal of Section 377A will somehow make it easier for gays to have sex (since that is what facilitate means). But the Government itself has repeatedly and openly stated that it will not proactively enforce Section 377A. Let's not delude ourselves, gay men are having gay sex. That is going to continue happening regardless of whether Section 377A is in place.
The debate over Section 377A is not about what gay men are doing or are not doing. It is really about the message that society should send to homosexuals, and some may argue other disenfranchised minorities in society as well. The Government itself, in its proposal to preserve Section 377A, admits as much. So that conclusion is (whether deliberately or otherwise) misleading in its suggestion that the repeal of Section 377A will somehow make it easier for gays to have sex, which naturally also suggests that there will be more gay sex.
Secondly, even if, for argument's sake, we accept that gay sex is indeed a public health risk, there is no attempt to explain why we should specifically criminalise this public health risk but not others. Why not criminalise unprotected sex with unlicensed prostitutes in Singapore, or with prostitutes overseas? What about other non-sexual risks that do affect other people, such as smoking?
My recollection is that the numerical majority of HIV/AIDS sufferers in Singapore were infected through unprotected sex overseas, presumably with prostitutes, as opposed to homosexuals. So if we are willing to criminalise overseas child sex (which addresses the extraterritorial issue), then why not overseas unprotected sex with prostitutes?
Either the writer took all of her leaps of logic as granted and self-evident (which speaks volumes about the unstated assumptions in her mind), or perhaps there is really no convincing manner in which one can successfully apply the two-pronged test of constitutionality to Section 377A and so she conveniently ignored all of it and sought to pass off mere assertions as reasoned arguments.
She concluded the first part of the piece by arguing that:
"any reform to the Penal Code must preserve fundamental values which serve the public good, instead of abstract notions of equality or fashion."
Now, in the first place, to me, equality is actually a fundamental value that serves the public good. It must be, and that is why it is enshrined in the Constitution.
Furthermore, there are other fundamental values serving the public good, that are adversely affected by Section 377A. The Law Society has rightly pointed out that continuing to keep a law on the books, that the Government has openly stated it will not proactively enforce, brings the law into disrepute. And inclusiveness is a word that is bandied about a lot, and Section 377A is a classic case of how society is deliberately, loudly and very conspicuously excluding a segment of society.
The writer seems to perceive the criminalisation of homosexual sex to be fundamentally in the public interest. It would have been helpful if there was even an iota of explanation as to why.
*
In the second part of her article, the writer then went on to talk about recent developments in foreign jurisdictions, about decriminalisation of gay sex as the first step in a "broader homosexual rights agenda to transform social morality". And here is where she betrays her real agenda.
This article is not about the legality or justifiability of homosexual sex per se. It is actually a Trojan horse that uses the debate over Section 377A as a vehicle to argue homosexuality per se.
I do not propose to rebut the writer's point-by-point construction of the alleged homosexual agenda one by one. I will only say that in my view, it makes sense only if one accepts and believes that homosexuality is inherently wrong and should be outlawed, and homosexuals should be excluded, disenfranchised and discriminated against.
I don't agree with that. But that is her premise, and she is entitled to her beliefs. Even though I disagree with it, I must say that, on the whole, the arguments in this part are much better-constructed than in the preceding section.
Having said that, logical rigour would seem to demand that the writer explain why, if homosexuality itself is so against the public interest, we should criminalise only homosexual sex and not other aspects of homosexuality. We all know of gay bars and clubs in Singapore, and even Mardi Gras events with prominent homosexual involvement. So why criminalise only the sexual expression of homosexuality?
Furthermore, I am sure that there are many other agendas that some or many people would believe to be contrary to the public good. So should we also criminalise acts related to such agendas? The writer does not explain what is so abhorrent or offensive about homosexuality that compels us to criminalise gay sex.
In any event, once she finishes her description of the alleged homosexual agenda, the writer lapses back into assertion-as-reasoning. She writes:
"The argument that decriminalising homosexual sex will not cause a change in moral attitudes is erroneous. It has been suggested that even after adultery was decriminalised, it remained morally reprehensible. So too, decriminalising homosexual sex will not cause a shift in moral attitudes."
The fact is that moral attitudes are probably already shifting. A Singapore Polytechnic study earlier this year shows that a large proportion of young people (half, if it is to be believed) nowadays accept homosexuality. A NTU study to be published soon found a correlation between youth and acceptance of homosexuality. Alex Au's analysis (which I agree with) suggests a dramatic trend towards acceptance within a relatively short period.
So whether or not Section 377A is repealed, the times they are a'changin', to quote Bob Dylan. So it is misleading to attribute any change in moral attitudes to the repeal of Section 377A.
Furthermore, this argument pre-supposes that moral attitudes, and in particular moral attitudes towards homosexuality, are fixed and always correct. That must be the underlying assumption, otherwise why should it be a problem for moral attitudes towards homosexuality to change? (In the interests of full disclosure and transparency, I admit that I am, for the most part, a moral relativist.)
But once upon a time, people held the view that it was immoral for women to work. Those views have since changed. I will leave it to you to decide if that was for better or worse.
She went on to state:
"While the law embodies a moral judgment, it is not always prudent for the law to punish all immoral behaviour. However, to draw an analogy between adulterers and homosexuals is fallacious. Adulterers do not seek societal approval, but certain homosexual activists campaign to alter the public mindset and to gain legal and social endorsement of the gay lifestyle."
I am not sure why any such campaign (if there is indeed such a campaign in Singapore) is relevant to the question of whether to criminalise Section 377A, which is what the commentary purports to be about. It is also not clear why the analogy between adulterous and homosexuals is fallacious simply because (assuming this to be true for argument's sake) homosexuals publicly attempt to advance their agenda. This seems to me be a red herring.
In the next paragraph, the writer commits perhaps her worst error:
"The fact is, under the proposed Penal Code reform, homosexuals wishing to lead private lives may do so, provided they do not foist their homosexual acts on the public."
This is the worst error because it is a factual error. Section 377A explicitly does not differentiate between public and private acts. The Government does not propose to change Section 377A. The Government itself acknowledges that the law will technically continue to apply to gay sex in private.
What the writer seems to be alluding to is the Government's declaration that it will not proactively enforce Section 377A. But that is not the point. The fact is that homosexuals leading their lives, whether or not they have gay sex in public or in private, are technically breaking the law. So either the writer was mistaken, or she was deliberately misleading the reader. I am not sure which bothers me more, given that the writer is a law professor in NUS.
The writer's next statement is:
"S377A is a legitimate statement of the values of our society. In constitutional terms, equality claims operate within a broader social context."
But this merely asserts the constitutionality of Section 377A, nevermind that her discussion on that issue was full of assertions and lacking in reasoning. Saying it often enough does not make it right or logical.
The writer concludes by stating:
"Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Allowing an aggressive homosexual rights agenda to dictate law reform ignores the nature of Singapore's multireligious, multiracial community. Such an agenda would be divisive. Therefore, the attention given to fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens by retaining S377A in its entirety strikes the right balance."
The first sentence is factually correct -- the NTU study I referred to confirms it. But conventional legal theory states that offensiveness, in and of itself, is not good enough reason make something a crime. Indeed, I can think of plenty of offensive behaviour (cutting queues and inconsiderate driving, for starters) that is not illegal. Furthermore, allowing moral majorities in and of themselves to dictate laws seems to me to be a big stride down the road to intolerance, discrimination and persecution.
The next sentence is factually incorrect. It suggests that only homosexuals are pushing for repeal of Section 377A. That is completely wrong. I am straight, and I oppose Section 377A. I know many people who are straight, who also oppose Section 377A.
Furthermore, and here I expect to attract some controversy (but I will push on anyway), I want to ask whether there is an aggressive religious agenda to dictate law-making in this area. The NTU study found a strong correlation between certain religions (specifically, Christianity and Islam) and opposition to homosexuality. Indeed, MM himself also alluded to this.
I am an atheist. I strongly object to allowing an aggressive religious agenda of one or two religions to dictate law reform (in the case, the lack thereof). That ignores the nature of Singapore's multireligious, multiracial community, which includes atheists, agnostics, Hindus and Buddhists. Such an agenda is divisive.
And so, I would invite those who assert homosexual agendas to declare their own agendas, openly and transparently.
*
I am not sure what I was more disappointed with: the thrust of the article, the poor (sometimes non-existent) reasoning, or the fact that The Straits Times chose to publish it and to give it such prominence. But I do know that I was immensely disappointed that this piece was written by an assistant professor in the NUS Law Faculty, who also teaches constitutional law. She may know the law, but she has not, in this piece, demonstrated the ability to apply it.
I was really upset when I read it. As a self-confessed liberal, I accept the right of others to hold their own opinions. That comes with the territory. But I do find such poorly-reasoned attempts at arguments terribly offensive. And that is why I decided to write such a long response to it.
Monday, 5 February 2007
Being recognised
On Saturday, I was recognised by someone I didn't personally know for the first time. Then again, I think it shouldn't count, because it was a Straits Times journalist, Zakir Hussain.
I was at the Workers' Party forum on the Penal Code amendments, just standing in the corner minding my own business. I saw the journalists leaving -- they were fairly obvious, being the ones who surrounded Sylvia Lim immediately after the forum ended. I didn't know any of them.
Then one of them glanced in my direction, and I knew he'd recognised me because he turned back and went up to me. I didn't want to give a quote initially, since I was there in my personal capacity (that was something I specifically asked Zakir to state, but was eventually omitted).
But since he was jotting down my comments about being there in my personal capacity, I figured that he was going to say something anyway, so I just said that there should be more forums about such issues, open to the public. And I do think there should be.
It felt a bit odd. Hopefully, only journalists will recognise me. I actually think that'd be the case -- after all, it's not like I'd be able to recognise all of the MPs if I met them on the street.
For the record, I would rather not be recognised by anyone at all.
I was at the Workers' Party forum on the Penal Code amendments, just standing in the corner minding my own business. I saw the journalists leaving -- they were fairly obvious, being the ones who surrounded Sylvia Lim immediately after the forum ended. I didn't know any of them.
Then one of them glanced in my direction, and I knew he'd recognised me because he turned back and went up to me. I didn't want to give a quote initially, since I was there in my personal capacity (that was something I specifically asked Zakir to state, but was eventually omitted).
But since he was jotting down my comments about being there in my personal capacity, I figured that he was going to say something anyway, so I just said that there should be more forums about such issues, open to the public. And I do think there should be.
It felt a bit odd. Hopefully, only journalists will recognise me. I actually think that'd be the case -- after all, it's not like I'd be able to recognise all of the MPs if I met them on the street.
For the record, I would rather not be recognised by anyone at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)