Interestingly, this prosecution may represent a widening of the scope of the law, instead of narrowing, which one would expect in these liberalising (or so we thought) times. Under the language of the legislation, the definition of an obscene object was suggested to be publications, figures or objets d'art, things that depicted nudity or sex in progress There was no indication that any form of sexual apparatus, often rather mechanical or clinical-looking, would be included in the definition. 

From this case, it would appear to me then that any object that is suggestive of sexual activity can be considered "obscene" in Singapore. Perhaps even an unfurled condom. Our sexphobia is going to absurd lengths.

The more fundamental problem that this story reminds us about is that Singapore has no accessible means for reviewing the definition of "obscene". In most jurisdictions with a robust judicial system, this definition is responsive to the times, and lies at the shifting intersection between community standards and free speech guarantees. Here we have a system that allows a single judge to make such a decision, not even a jury selected from ordinary citizens (and who may therefore represent a cross section of our society. Unfortunately, in this case, the defendant chose to plead guilty, but even if he fought the case, what evidence could he bring to convince that judge that community standards in Singapore have evolved to be realistic about these objects? In our sexphobic culture, there are hardly any surveys being carried out about sex issues.

There is the tantalising clue however, in the fact that these sex aids were manufactured in Hongkong, which means they must be legal there. Now, Hongkong is a predominantly Chinese society like ours. If the items are not obscene to Hongkong Chinese, couldn't one argue that they are not obscene to Singaporeans? Or does the state require Singaporeans to be more frigid?

There is also the problem that the cost of contesting such a charge -- looking up the research, getting researchers to testify, and paying for the extra court days -- could be prohibitive to a small businessman. Countries with more developed civil societies have groups dedicated to fighting such cases as a matter of public interest, e.g. the American Civil Liberties Union. With our government perennially suspicious of any group whose main calling is advocacy and the defence of civil liberties, hardly anyone would dare to set up anything like that.

Thus our state-powered sexphobia steamrolls on unchecked.

What this issue shows is one more way in which our political system of an overpowerful executive robs us of yet another liberty. We can't even fuck a doll, because we can't own such a doll. And the system is so loaded in favour of the government and their appointed judges, that we don't even have a doll's squeak of a chance to argue back and demand the freedom to masturbate the way we want in the privacy of our bedrooms.

© Yawning Bread