| |
Oz
|
Oral sex ruling vexes many
Law unrealistic, say some
It's part of intimacy, notes expert
Case for changing law, say lawyers
By Tanya Fong And Glenys Sim
THE issue of whether oral sex should still be a crime has not been this hotly debated in public since 1997.
That case concerned a 47-year-old man whose 19-year-old colleague performed oral sex on him in a hotel in Geylang in 1996.
AN ACQUITTAL
IN 1996, plumber Kwan Kwong Weng, 47, was charged with two counts of forcing a 19-year-old woman colleague to perform oral sex on him at a Geylang hotel.
However, then Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh acquitted him without calling for his defence.
But the prosecution appealed. The appeal judges found that the JC was wrong to have let Kwan off without calling for his defence, and sent the case back for further hearing.
In September that year, the JC acquitted him again after hearing Kwan's defence. The judge said he found it unsafe to convict Kwan based on the young woman's word in court because he did not find her evidence to be 'sufficiently reliable and convincing'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 377
This section of Singapore's Penal Code deals with only a small range of sex offences and does not specifically mention oral sex.
When prosecutors deal with a complaint of oral sex, they are confronted with the difficulty of prosecuting it under the few, narrowly defined laws.
The main categories are:
• Rape: Where a man has sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent. The maximum punishment is 20 years' jail and caning.
• Outrage of modesty or molestation: This includes all threatening sexual contact intended to outrage a woman's modesty. The maximum punishment is two years' jail and caning.
• Carnal intercourse against the order of nature: Anyone who performs this with any man, woman or animal voluntarily can be jailed for life, or jailed for up to 10 years, and fined.
In comparison, for causing serious injury to another person, the maximum penalty is seven years' jail, and a fine or caning.
He was acquitted, but the case went back to court when the prosecution appealed. Finally, in 1997, he was acquitted by then Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh.
Yesterday's report about a policeman jailed for having oral sex with a willing teenager prompted many Straits Times readers to respond that the law was too unrealistic, and the punishment it prescribed too severe.
Several of the 20 readers who e-mailed this newspaper said they were shocked that oral sex was still an offence under the Penal Code.
They were reacting to news that police sergeant Annis Abdullah, 27, was jailed on Thursday for two years for having oral sex with the 16-year-old girl and that he will probably lose his job as well.
They had been acquainted for about a year, the court was told.
Section 377 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.
Yesterday, the four sexual health experts that The Straits Times consulted said that oral sex was commonplace and should be decriminalised.
At least 60 per cent of married couples engage in it, one estimated.
'Oral sex is part and parcel of intimacy and sex, ' said Professor Li Man Kay, a urologist and sex therapist at Gleneagles Hospital.
Clinical psychologist Yam Keng Mun, executive director of the Centre for Effective Living, said: 'A lot of people see oral sex as a good substitute for intercourse. They perceive it as pretty safe, especially since the risk of pregnancy is avoided.'
The 11 lawyers The Straits Times spoke to said that the case for changing the law was stronger than ever before.
In England, where oral sex was once also outlawed, the law has been changed.
Mr G.S. Dhillon, a solicitor who has been practising there for five years, said that as long as the female performing the oral sex is above 13, she is deemed to be able to give consent.
So what Annis Abdullah did in Singapore would not be a crime in England.
In Singapore, oral sex is an offence whether there is consent or not.
Mr Sarbrinder Singh, an experienced criminal lawyer, thinks the law should make a distinction, 'for example, when it is forced, as opposed to when it is consensual'.
Lawyer Gloria James, who has been in practice for seven years, said this 'archaic law' can pose legal problems.
'It can be used as a powerful psychological and legal weapon against a man, even when it's consensual, ' she added.
What happened to Annis Abdullah is exactly what some of her male clients fear if their partners decide to punish them, she said.
That, said Mr Singh, was what happened to one of his clients. The man's wife performed oral sex on him and then reported him to the police, he said.
He said: 'She had used the law against her husband, because she wanted to get back at him for having an affair with another woman.'
When told that he could end up in jail, the man settled the matter by apologising to his wife and ending his womanising.
Lawyers said that Section 377 has become a catch-all provision to prosecute cases that do not qualify as rape, but are too grave to be prosecuted as an outrage of modesty.
It also opens up other questions: When a man performs oral sex on a woman, is it the man or the woman who commits the offence?
Neither the Home Affairs Ministry nor the Law Society were able to respond by press time.
A former judge said: 'The law should be clearly expressed, and ambiguity like this should be obliterated. Logically, if it was consensual, it should not be an offence, unless the party who commits the act is underaged, or mentally impaired.'
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 5:57 pm on Nov. 7, 2003
|
|
Tsonoqua
|
This is pretty amazing. Although it's probably still illegal in Alabama. What a comparison.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 9:17 pm on Nov. 7, 2003
|
|
Arramsey
|
I cannot believe that Singapore ( which has proven to be a very sensibly governed city state in most matters ) maintains a law that is so vague.
As Oz quoted, Section 377 criminalises anyone who voluntarily indulges in sexual activity that is against the "order of nature".
So - what exactly is the "order of nature" and who defines it ?
This means that 60% of all married couples in Singapore along with all gays and analators are comitting crimes daily !!!
It appears to me that this law has very little to do with what is right for the country and more to do with the "morals" that the powers that be want to thrust down Singaporeans throats.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:15 am on Nov. 9, 2003
|
|
| |
|
