The first time this was said was on 15 Nov 2003 when Mrs Ong-Chew Peck Wan wrote on behalf of the Ministry to the Straits Times. She said,

The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law are reviewing the law relating to oral sex as part of an ongoing review of the Penal Code. This review will be completed within the next few months.

 
In a sitting of Parliament on 6 January 2004, two members of Parliament raised the issue of sexual offences.

R Ravindran asked the Minister for Home Affairs, "in the light of the changed societal norms and values whether his Ministry will appoint a Committee to review the law on sexual offences in Singapore."

Chandra Mohan K Nair's question was "whether section 377 (and perhaps section 377A) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) will be reviewed with a view to amending, repealing or clarifying by way of 'Explanation', 'Exception' or 'Illustration'.

Ho Peng Kee, the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, replied to these two questions on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs. He said,

[The Ministry of Home Affairs] is currently reviewing the Penal Code in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers. The aim of the review is to update the offences and penalties in the Penal Code to stay relevant in today's context.

Sections 377 and 377A are being examined as part of this review. Current societal norms will be taken into account in examining these sections. For section 377, one option being considered is to decriminalise consensual oral sex between a male and female so long as it is done in private and both of them are above 16 years of age. The fact is there has not been any prosecution for consensual oral sex in private between a male and female for many years, except in cases involving minors or those who are physically or mentally vulnerable.

Sir, there are several other provisions in the Penal Code and other legislation, such as the Children and Young Persons Act and the Women's Charter, that cover different sexual offences. In line with Mr Ravindran's suggestion, we will study if there is a need to expand, clarify or dovetail the scope of some of these offences. The review committee will consult MHA's Government Parliamentary Committee of which Mr Ravindran is Deputy Chairman, as well as other relevant Ministries and agencies, as appropriate. We expect to complete our review of sexual offences in two to three months' time.

Mr Mohan asked if we would be amending, repealing or clarifying section 377 or section 377A by way of "explanation", "exception" or "illustration". Sir, this is a technical matter, concerning drafting approach, which is for the legal draftsmen to consider once the policy considerations have been settled. MHA will consult the Attorney-General's Chambers on the most appropriate approach to effect changes to the law.

Note the following key points in Ho's reply:

1. The review includes section 377A which is infamous for being the part of the Penal Code that directly criminalises sexual acts between males, framed in vague language.

2. the option that he raised, however was to decriminalise oral sex only between a male and a female.

3. the review was expected to be completed in 2 to 3 months' time.

People Like Us responded strongly to the suggestion that only oral sex between a male and female be decriminalised. The group sent a letter to each and every Member of Parliament protesting the discriminatory intent behind such a proposal. See some MPs' responses in the article What if your own son or daughter is gay? 

* * * * *

 
Two months later on 12 March 2004, in another sitting of Parliament, MPs debated the issue again and asked for a progress report.

K Shanmugam highlighted that the existing practice of prosecutorial discretion was unhealthy, as it introduced the element of uncertainty into our laws. He asked when the review would be completed, and whether in the meantime, prosecutions for oral sex would still take place.

Charles Chong focussed on Section 377, which criminalised the "so-called unnatural sex offences."

He argued that "current provisions are not in line with today's mores. A true crime must have a victim." And that "any form of safe sexual activity between consenting adults of full capacity in private surely cannot be considered a crime."

Chong also argued that our laws be made gender-neutral.

Wang Kai Yuen also expressed his view that "what takes place between two consenting adults behind close doors is increasingly being viewed as a private matter between them. The State should not come between them."

Ho Geok Choo said, "if the law is archaic, we should amend it so that the law will not be held in mockery." However, she prefaced all her comments by carefully referring only to oral sex between a male and a female.

In reply, the junior Home Minsiter, Ho Peng Kee said the review of the Penal Code was a massive exercise, involving "more than 400 provisions, and because we have to look at other legislation, it has taken some time. But we are nearing completion."

At this sitting, he did not repeat his estimate that the review would take 2 – 3 months, as had been the standard formulation in November and January.

He said his ministry, in co-ordination with other ministries, was looking "at whether there is a need to introduce new offences and, indeed, if certain offences need to be repealed." He was not more specific than that.

In addressing Charles Chong's point that our laws need to be more gender-neutral, Ho said, "I think Penal Code offences, particularly those that relate to sex, they start from a different point, especially in terms of deterrence. I think all of us in this House will agree that the males are normally the aggressive party in such matters. So, really the provisions should seek to deter them."

I have commented on the paleolithic mindset behind this statement in the article Man wield club, man rape woman pointing out the injustice that such a mindset sets up.

* * * * *

All the above quotes from the 6 Jan 2004 and 12 March 2004 sessions were taken from the Hansard, the official minutes of Parliamentary proceedings.

There has been no further Parliamentary discussion about the Penal Code since. Neither Ho Peng Kee nor any other minister has mentioned the review exercise since. As far as I can see, no journalist in any of our leading papers have squeaked to ask, "So, has the review been completed within its 2-3 month's time frame?"

It is now July 2005. It is 21 months since Anis Abdullah was convicted of oral sex under Section 377. 21 months since the review was first mentioned. 19 months since the January 2004 sitting of parliament when Ho Peng Kee reiterated that a review was in progress. 17 months since he repeated that it was "nearing completion."

Something is stuck.

I'd like to think People Like Us made a difference. We have pointed out how absolutely unjust it would be that oral sex be decriminalised for heterosexual situations and left criminal for homosexual situations. I'd like to think we've made it acutely clear that the government cannot get away with it without looking, well, paleolithic.

Perhaps that's why it's stuck. They can't imagine decriminalising homosexual oral sex, but they can't decriminalise heterosexual oral sex alone. 

If so, it illustrates a general principle that it is a fool's paradise to expect freedom and justice for some without freedom and justice for all.

Perhaps, the government feels that since they can't be seen to be changing the laws in the only way that justice and conscience dictates, it's best to leave it as it is and let prosecutorial discretion do the work. If so, they should heed Shanmugam's warning. He said, on 12 March 2004,

Is this a satisfactory state of affairs? Should we have a situation where we believe that many are committing an offence but accept that the prosecution will prosecute only 'deserving' cases? That derogates from a very basic principle that underpins our society, which is the rule of law.....

Not the rule of the prosecutor. Shanmugam continued,

If it is an offence, it does not matter whether you are a Minister, MP, judge, police officer or a private citizen.

Charles Chong added,

it does not do us any favour to have crimes on our books that either cannot realistically be policed or, even worse, are selectively prosecuted, as mentioned by Mr Shanmugam.

Wang Kai Yuen concurred,

It merely means that the State retains the discretion to selectively prosecute some while turning a blind eye to others. These people are criminals in the eyes of the law. They are just not caught. So the message seems to be that as long as they are not caught, it is OK. This is definitely not a healthy attitude to the law that we should encourage in Singapore.

Then again, maybe they are not stuck. To be stuck, one must first have seriously attempted to make some movement. Maybe the review never really went anywhere. I know that one was indeed instituted -- there have been other corroborating reports that a review was in progress -- but perhaps once public outrage after Anis Abdullah was convicted had been deflected, the need for action evaporated?

What do you think? 

© Yawning Bread