District judge Kow Keng Siong sentenced a 65-year-old man on 16 March 2004 to 2 years’ jail for having received fellatio from his 59-year-old niece. The accused did not deny that the sex act took place, but claimed that they had a romantic relationship and it was consensual.
The prosecution, on the other hand, said that the woman had subnormal intelligence. Her IQ was only about 60. She was thus easily persuaded or coerced. The judge found this convincing. He said,
"It is evident to me that she did not have sufficient mental capacity to form a meaningful and romantic relationship with
you."
The case arose when the adult son of the woman, suspicious of his grand-uncle’s visits to his mother, installed surveillance cameras at home. The cameras caught on tape the sexual acts on two occasions.
The judge sentenced the man to 1 year for each act of sex, thus totalling 2 years.
Anis Abdullah’s case, as reference
The sentence of 1 year for each act of sex is the same as the sentence Anis Abdullah received from the Chief Justice recently. Anis, a former policeman, had originally been sentenced to 2 years, but this was cut in half by the Chief Justice.
The details in Anis’ case are quite different, but nonetheless, a comparison of the two cases reveal some absurdities.
Anis was found guilty for having received fellatio from a 16-year-old girl. After Anis’ trial it was revealed that the prosecution had stated her age wrongly in court documents; she was only 15. However, the girl, it was revealed, was quite experienced in sex, and the Chief Justice recognized that Anis neither abused his position as a police officer nor applied any coercion on the girl.
Everybody, including the Chief Justice, must be aware that the government has stated its intention to decriminalize oral sex between a consenting adult male and female (as for why same-sex oral sex is to remain criminal is another matter, which we won’t get into here). Given the likely direction of legislation, it does not seem right for anyone now to be prosecuted for oral sex, or if already found guilty, to be given anything more than a suspended sentence.
Yet Anis was still given a jail sentence. Thus it would appear that the consensual nature of his relationship with the teenage girl was not considered legal consent. One can only infer therefore that the fact of her being only 15 was relevant. At that age, she would not be considered mature enough to give consent.
How does the logic of Anis’ case apply in the grand-uncle’s case?
Now, let’s go back to the 'grand-uncle' case. The woman was 59 years old, but the judge felt that her mental age was such that she could not fully give consent. Since the sentence on the grand-uncle was the same as that given to Anis on appeal, one could conclude that the 59-year-old woman was considered to be roughly where the 15-year-old girl was, maturity-wise.
That being the case, one should ask, how was it that the woman could have been married in the first place? If she is not considered mature enough to consent to sex, she could not have been mature enough to consent to marriage. Therefore the marriage should have been null and void. The sex she had with her
'husband' should also have been criminal, as she could never have fully consented. Her
'husband' (now deceased) must have been guilty of rape all along.
How do we know that rape occurred? How do we know that the 'husband' penetrated the woman? Simple, my dear Watson. We can deduce that from the fact that the woman has a son
-– the same son who installed surveillance cameras to catch his grand-uncle in the act. The same son who reported the incidents to the police.
If the woman is not able to consent to sex with the 'grand-uncle', she could not have been able to consent to marriage with her
'husband'. Her marriage should be void. The son, therefore, must be illegitimate. In other words, a bastard.
Keep up the great work, judges of Singapore! 
© Yawning Bread
|
|
