March 2004

Man wield club, man rape woman

    

  

 
Speaking in Parliament on Friday 12 March 2004, Minister of State (Law and Home Affairs), Ho Peng Kee, rejected MP Charles Chong's suggestion that our sex laws should be gender-neutral.

"But I should add that with regard to making provisions non-gender-specific, we should not go overboard in doing this. This is because in sexual matters, men are normally still the aggressor. Our laws need to deter them, not the women," he said.

It's breathtaking how Paleolithic is the mindset behind a statement like that!

It's supremely patriarchal. He sees men as dominant (here cast as 'aggressive'), and women as submissive. By ruling out laws that make sexual misdeeds offences for women, he is effectively saying women are unable to commit sexual misdeeds. Which is not much different from the Victorian idea that women are unable to initiate sex; they are only passive receptacles for the male "seed".

Ho may protest this reading. He may say that through the use of the words, "normally still the aggressor", he was only indicating that the majority of the cases are committed by men, and this surely is true. But if he does that, then our Minister responsible for Law, no less, is saying that women, however few, who commit sexual offenses should get off scot-free because our laws should specify only men!

Since the majority of shop-lifters are female, shouldn't we then specify that only females can be guilty of shop-lifting?

Since the majority of speedsters are male, shouldn't we specify that only males can be guilty of speeding?

* * * * *

 
Our government has said that Singapore needs to be a thinking society, in order to survive in the new millennium. Do people in government even know what thinking is?

* * * * *

 
Ah, but I suspect there was something else going on in the Minister's head that made him utter such an inanity.

If you look at the version of the story from 'Today' (see the buff box below) you'd see that Charles Chong's comment was this:

"While I am not known to be a cunning linguist, I will try my best to convince the House that the current provisions are not in line with today's mores. A true crime must have a victim. I am content that any form of safe sexual activity between consenting adults of full capacity, in private, surely cannot be a crime."

Since the context was that the oral sex law was likely to be amended to make it legal for only heterosexual oral sex [1], Chong's rephrasing it to "any form of safe sexual activity between consenting adults of full capacity, in private", together with pointing out that a true crime must have a victim, suggested a far wider repeal. There was a whiff of gay-friendliness there.

How outrageous!

Thus it was imperative that the Minister should rebut the notion of gender-neutral language in our laws. To accept that kernel of an idea would be to go down a road which dogma did not permit.

The term "gender-neutral" was merely a proxy for the idea of being a bit more modern about non-normative sexualities.

More modern? Red lights flash.

So quick, think of a reason why we cannot have gender-neutral language. The proxy must be parried.

Ah yes, here it is: Man wield club, man rape woman. So, (grunt!) no gender-neutral language.

At no time does anyone stop to think, why not indeed?

© Yawning Bread 

 
Straits Times
13 March 2004

Review of oral sex law to relook other sex crimes too

Passopns were aroused in the House yesterday when the topic turned to the issue of why oral sex between consenting adults should be a crime.

Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) said that while he was 'no cunning linguist', he wondered if the oral sex legislation was still in line with today's mores.

Added lawyer-MP K Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): 'The public debate...confirms conventional wisdom that oral sex is common among not an insignificant part of the population.

'Let us not shrink from confirming that.'

Senior Minister of State (Law and Home Affairs) Ho Peng Kee did not shrink. He noted that the legislation, drafted in '19th century language', was not clear about the mischief it was trying to address.

The law states that 'whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals' can be fined and jailed up to 10 years, or even for life.

He reiterated that the law was being relooked to make it all right for a man and a woman to have oral sex, so long as it was consensual and done in private. Non-consensual oral sex will still be a crime. As will oral sex involving someone below 16. This has been the consistent approach of the authorities, he said.

'We prosecute...where oral sex is performed with a minor under 16 years of age, or where the sex is carried out in public, or when it involved deception, coercion or which amounted to sexual assault,' said Associate Professor Ho.

In fact, the committee reviewing the Penal Code is studying if 'there is a need to accord even greater protection for minors'.

The oral sex issue came to prominence when former police sergeant Annis Abdullah, 27, was jailed last year for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. In the aftermath of his case, many readers wrote to The Straits Times' Forum Page to protest against the punishment, which also created a buzz in Internet chatrooms.

Yesterday, Prof Ho said the Penal Code review will also tie up the disparate provisions on sexual offences, which can now be found in the Penal Code, the Women's Charter and the Children and Young Persons' Act.

Yes, he told Nominated MP Braema Mathi, it will also look at whether some terms should be more clearly defined, such as carnal knowledge, which is mentioned under incest laws in the Penal Code, and carnal connection, which appears in laws prohibiting prostitution in the Women's Charter.

And yes, he told Mr Chong, it will also look at whether enticing a married woman into having sex - an offence which carries a jail term of up to two years and a fine - should still be on the books.

He had an important caveat when he responded to suggestions that laws governing sexual offences should not have 'gender-specific' references. For example, the law makes it clear that a man cannot insult a woman's modesty - but not the other way around.

'We will bear all these in mind in our review,' he said.

'But I should add that with regard to making provisions non-gender-specific, we should not go overboard in doing this. This is because in sexual matters, men are normally still the aggressor. Our laws need to deter them, not the women.'

 

Footnotes

  1. For background, see the articles, The blowjob that blew down our oral sex law, and Oral sex: how 'Today' edited my letter
    Return to where you left off

  2. See the article, Another gay forum banned
    Return to where you left off

  3. See the article, My forum was banned
    Return to where you left off

Addenda

None

   
'Today' newspaper
13 March 2004

Oral sex law review nearing completion

The Government has said a review of the law to decriminalise oral sex between consenting adults is near completion. The review is part of a broader relook at sex crimes.

Two policemen were jailed recently for having oral sex with consenting 15-year-old girls. They were convicted because the girls were underaged.

Speaking in Parliament on Friday, some Members of Parliament said they want laws on oral sex changed.

Mr Charles Chong, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, said: "While I am not known to be a cunning linguist, I will try my best to convince the House that the current provisions are not in line with today's mores. A true crime must have a victim. I am content that any form of safe sexual activity between consenting adults of full capacity, in private, surely cannot be a crime."

Madam Ho Geok Choo, MP for West Coast GRC, said: "Oral sex is either a perverse conduct or not. Its legitimacy cannot depend on whether it leads to natural intercourse in which it is acceptable and lawful, but is perverse and unlawful if it does not lead to intercourse. Such a distinction is untenable."

Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, said: "No man or woman engaging in consensual oral sex in private, even though it comes under the ambit of section 377, has been prosecuted for many years now."

Nevertheless, a review of sex laws is in full swing. Lawmakers are looking at repealing archaic offences, relooking penalties and clarifying terminology.

But Professor Ho was reluctant to make all sex laws gender-neutral, saying: "In sexual matters, men are normally the aggressor. Our laws need to deter them, not women."