By Ravi Philemon and Gangasudhan
I wonder why Channel News Asia has gone for sensationalism in reporting the Singapore Police Force’s (SPF) annual crime brief. SPF’s crime statistics have more important issues such as the increase in petty theft cases, the increase in break-ins at HDB residences and education/care centres and the increase in the number of elderly victims falling prey to cheating and related offences.
Of the 3 main concerns highlighted in the SPF’s brief, CNA chose to focus on the least crime-related issue – statutory rape.
Section 375 of our penal code defines statutory rape as:
“Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis (b) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age”.
Statutory rape is actually a social problem not a criminal one. Plus there is no provision in our penal code to protect the penetrator even if he is also under 14 years of age and the sex was consensual.
Here is a hypothetical scenario:
Boy, 14 and Girl, 14 have sex; Girl gets scared when confronted by parents and admits; parents lodge report; boy gets dragged to the Police station and court. I would say the boy is the bigger victim here as both parties were young and ignorant – and had willingly participated in sex (or what could be worse is if the girl had initiated the sex).
With youths continuing to get sexually active at younger and younger ages, and with parents having been brought up in a culture where they have to ‘save face’, it is little wonder that reported statutory rape cases have risen. And when a parent makes a report, the police will have no choice but to take action, even if the sex was based on mutual consent.
Although law enforcement agents and prosecutors view these laws as necessary for the protection of minors, statutory rape law as it stands now is but a paternalistic anachronism.
In an age when the internet gives perpetrators access to children and minors are often treated as knowledgeable adults, is there a need to redefine the statutory rape laws?
The Singapore Police Force media release on the Annual Crime Brief 2009 can be read here.
Related posts:
- Marital rape
- Petition against ‘marital rape’ off to slow start
- In S’pore, raping your wife is not rape
- Anachronism
- “Operation Spectrum was political rape”
Are you suggesting teenage (younger) sex is alright as long as it is consentual? Are we neglecting the consequences of pregnantcies, stds, aids and abuses? Changing the law which may be out steps with time will not solve the issue of underage sexual activities or blaming ’save face’ for increases in report of statutory rape is also foolish. Nobody can prevent kids(if they are keen on it) from having sex and in process causing parents to lose face, but the question I have is how much understanding do these kids have and psychological or moral remification effects have upon them when they grow up?
Children are not knowledgeable (worldly or street wise) adults because they can access informations on internet, often they fall victims to perpetrators(some are children themselves) because because they got out of comfortable box.
Are we teaching our children to devalue and direspect their own bodies?The problem is laws and closed minded parents from letting children have fun, is it?
No fan of CNA but there is validity in wanting to address ’underage sex’.
how/where are the families,education,and govt? aren’t they addressing this issue?
I think the publicity given to stat rape cases is to remind everyone that it’s against the law. The other increases are property crimes; rape is a crime against the body. Since this is the internet age, publicising the law would at least cause the guy to stop and think before he proceeds. Believe me, if the law had also penalized the girl, women groups like Aware would be screaming at it.
The scenario painted by the writers is more real than hypothethical. What’s more – it is scientifically proven that teenage girls mature faster than teenage boys – and for this reason alone, the boy should not be dragged by the hands of the law as if he is the sole wrong doer in such a scenario where both are equally responsible and guilty.
That aside, I believe the law is meant more for parents of teenage daughters in this age group, in that, it assures them that they are adequately protected by the law in such circumstances. It is time for the parents of teenage boys to get them protected to this extent as well.
To add further, the sex education program for teenage children has to be re-looked into. The much talked-about CSE program secretly introduced to the schools by the old AWARE is thankfully no longer accepted.
I say this because the most recent study published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine revealed that abstinence-only sex-education programs had proven more effective in encouraging teens to delay having sex than the more comprehensive school programs that included information about safe sex and contraception options ala Aware’s CSE program.
This has even prompted the Obama administration to now consider boosting funding for such programs.
One question: Section 375 quoted above begins with: ‘Any man… May I ask what is the definition for ‘man’? Is a 14 year old boy considered a man? Has the law been misinterpreted by the police when they arrest minors by classifying them as man?
No offense to all, but the reason why CNA decided to concentrate on the statutory rape in their article is simply because it is more sensational than property crimes.
However, with regards to changing the law itself so as to “protect” the boy from the whims of “the girl”, I do not think AWARE should be “making any noise” after all, both sexes should be punished for the error of their ways. Thats equality.
When it comes to the nature of sex below the age of 14, I do not think it is merely a social problem. The scenario raised by the author no doubt happens. However, how much often do we see cases of the older males having sex with girls below the age of 14?
To remove the law because of this sporadic instances of same-aged sex, would not be pragmatical will it? Also, having the law not include boys below the age of 14 would not be pragmatic either. It would suggest then that as long as you are below 14, you can go about having as many coital encounters as you desire.
The current law in place is not without flaws. However I do think that it is probably the best alternative in place.
Its hilarious that gemani states that abstinence only programs are working – isnt that what most faminly bias and religious based educators have been preaching about in our schools all this time before the AWARE started their CSE program? The fact is that even with our rigid education systems which promotes abstinence only (thanks to Focus on the Family), the rates of teenage sex happening have been increasing through the years. And for every study that advocates abstinence only in the states, there are tons of others that say otherwise. It is no wonder that Obama is trying to curb teenage pregnancies through more sex education and not through encouraging abstinence only programs which has had their funding revoked – leading to est like Focus for Family going bust and retrenching their workers last year. (BTW FOF would rather retrench and deprive their workers of a livelihood then to cut back on multi-million dollars ads at the Superbowl)
The reality is this – abstinence programs which have been touted aggressively in our schools are not working. The govt themselves acknowledge that the rates of teenage sex is going to increase. And if this is the case, educational and religious instituitions should do more to promote safe sex to curb STDs and teenage pregnancies – situations which could destroy the budding potential and lives of our young ones. Being blind is one thing – lets not others into blindness as well.
Abstinence only programs work? Please. Those who went for those ended up getting pregnant younger. Look at Palin’s daughter.
The original article is also poorly argued. Mutual consent is STILL statutory rape. Imagine if some 60 year old gets a 14 year old to consent, possibly by giving money or other things. So it’s all right?
Re: Sensationalism – it’s been a while since I’ve read the ST, but I seem to recall that every day the Home section would devote considerable space to the reportage of sexual misdemeanors, to the extent that it seemed like our streets were positively teeming with paedophiles, rapists, molesters, paedophile-molesters, molester-rapists, paedophile-rapists and rapist-rapists.
Few things distract a populace as effectively as moral outrage over sexual behaviour: there are people in the world (and this country) who would fly into an apoplectic rage at the mere suggestion that, say, it’s alright for a man to shag another man. The world might fall apart and we might all be eating rats and drinking sewage, but by Jove there had better not be a lesbian about.
Also, quit it with the ridiculous DISINFO. Abstinence-only programmes disrespect our children, devalue our bodies and, not to put too fine a point on it, DON’T WORK.
http://www.mockingbird.sg,
How is ‘redefining’ the law as proposed by the authors, equal to ‘removing’ the law?
@I don’t see the point
The writer is not saying that there is no problem here. Everyone is agreed that underage sex is undesirable for various reasons. He is saying that it is a social problem which should be remedied with measures other than the criminal law.
@Wahliao
I believe the situation the writer had in mind was one where both the male and female participants were underaged.
Sloo wrote:
“And if this is the case, educational and religious instituitions should do more to promote safe sex to curb STDs and teenage pregnancies”
Safe sex is never safe. It is just an excuse for people who promote casual sex. Zimbabwe is the only nation that fights Aids with success. Unlike its neighboring counties which fight Aids with safe-sex, Zimbabwe promotes healthy family life-style, faithful to spouse etc and has successfully reduce the amount of HIV carriers from about 1/3 of its population to about 13% today. However, its neighbours, which believe in the fallacy of safe-sex, continue to suffer from high rate of HIV.
As a social problem, sexual activity of youths must be curb with value, life-style and social atmosphere. Safe sex is simply damage control that doesn’t help to solve the problem at its root. It is just like pain killer. If you try to cure your back pain with pain killer alone, you will end up with more serious problem in the long run because thinking that the back pain has gone may mislead you to further damage your back by not resting it or seek for treatment.
Abstinence only programs? You mean like those that taught JC students that condoms will let the HIV virus through, and that masturbation is evil? Great education there, sounds more like deception and moralistic brainwashing to me.
I doubt that those who cry loudest for abstinence only programs truly have the interests of the teens at heart, from a factual/scientific basis. Rather, their key interest is recruitment of impressionable teens into their moral systems, which largely consists of “pre-marital sex is EVIL because my leader says so!”.
for those puritans who are so concerned about the safety of our children, please answer these two questions:
1) If an adult has sex with his girlfriend, but successfully practises safe sex and does not get unwanted pregnancies or STDs, is that still a problem? Don’t say this is a hypothetical because it is entirely possible, my friends and myself all manage to pull it off.
2) Since safety and health is the issue with sex, would you kindly promote lesbian sex? It has been proven that that is the safest category of sex (lesbian sex -> straight sex -> gay sex).
3) Is masturbation ok? Surely that wouldn’t cause STDs or unwanted pregnancies. And no, I don’t know what you teach others, but it does not cause blindness and hairy palms too.
If your view is that, in spite of safety being out of the equation, sex is still wrong simply because it is out of marriage, I would suggest you come clean and simply say you’re promoting a certain moral agenda instead of safety. There is nothing wrong with that, and people can make an informed choice about whether they prefer to adopt morality package A, B or C for their own lives, without being blindsided by all the fluff about safety.
I am of the opinion that children should be taught in school to abstain from sex because it is simply the right thing to do. To advocate practicing safe sex to our young children is almost like telling them that having sex is okay, regardless of their young age. The problem is at their young age, are they ready for it mentally and emotionally? What about the social costs? To some extent, we have to see sex at such a young age like someone handling a knife in the kitchen. Would you trust someone so young to handle a knife? In this regard, I feel that parents have a very big and important role to play. The schools can only do so much. Thankfully, we have the law to observe and that should act as a deterrent against wrongful behaviour. The question is how should we deal with children who engage in consensual sex? Should we called it satutory rape? I am sure our capable government will be able to come up with a solution.
I think there should be moderation and logic with regard to sexual matters. Unfortunately, such debates usually ends up being emotional. People adopt the fanatical moralist stance that everything not in accordance with their beliefs is wrong and should be banned. Alternatively, there will be those who scream free sex without regard to the consequences.
We should not adopt the ultra-liberal position that young children should be having sex, the same way young children should not be drinking or smoking. They’re not mature enough to make the safe choices and exercise moderation.
At the same time, we should also avoid the extremist conservative/religious position that you cannot have sex without marriage. Surely there is nothing wrong with consenting adults having sex with their partners, regardless of the legal status of their relationship. It is just another facet of a healthy relationship. Sexual autonomy should not be denied to responsible, educated people who are well-placed to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. There are no absolutes in moral matters.
I agree with objective that statutory rape should apply to both boys and girls. Prima facie, such a provision is already discriminatory to the males. What people often ignore is that it is equally offensive to the females. It implies that they are the victims whenever sex is involved, that they are some weak, exploited party which needs protection.
I know of many women who enjoy sex and don’t think it is something shameful. It is really silly and outdated to view women as people who don’t know how to love their own bodies and seek pleasure as the guys do. Should their sole social role be to stay at home, wait for their husbands to bang them, then breed? That would be very demeaning and regressive in our modern society. We pride ourselves on having a first world infrastructure, let’s have a first world mindset too instead of acting like the taliban or american rednecks.
hwtan (Feb 10, 2010 11:08)
You may want to read about some of the reasons of why there is a drop in HIV <b>STATISTICS</b> in Zimbabwe here: http://www.avert.org/aids-zimbabwe.htm
Zorro Feb 10, 2010 11:39
You seem to have interpreted the teaching of safe sex to saying safe sex is okay. If I may use your analogy: do you want to teach your child on how to safely handle a knife if, for whatever reasons, you cannot stop him/her from getting hold of one? Does it mean it is okay to play with a knife just because you teach him/her how to use it safely?
I think the above hypothetical scenario is misleading. a boy aged 14 (or for the matter, under 16) cannot be charged as an adult, and hence would not attract the punishment as given under the penal code.
As for the issue of consent, it is to me a non-starter to begin with. The law does not ignore the girl’s consent wilfully; rather the girl’s consent cannot be taken into account simply because of the presumption that her age renders her incapable of giving consent. While this may seem rather far-fetch by our personal experience, take a step back to consider this: this “incapacity” doctrine is one that is of general application in the law. It applies, generally speaking, to areas such as allowing a 14 year old girl to make those 1900 phone calls, or to allow a 14 year old boy to apply for a debit card. It seems illogical to me to argue that a 14 year old girl’s consent is valid enough to be taken into account for the purposes of sexual intercourse, but not valid enough if the same girl were to apply for a debit card on her own initiative.
The real issue would then be whether one is still uncomfortable with any form of punishment inflicted on the (presumably) “innocent” (as in intuitively; legally of course he must be guilty) 14 year old boy (eg probation, boys’ home etc), while letting the 14 year old girl go free. Now this is an open question to which i have not quite made up my mind yet, though intuitively speaking, I would be for it.
To anyone,
I just want to ask if there is another law that specifically protects against underaged sex, not just 375 which seems to only protect the underaged girl? iirc, there were cases where an older woman and underaged boys were involved?
lobo76, if i recall correctly there were a couple of cases in singapore where the older women were jailed.
@lobo76
As I had mentioned in my earlier posts, the author had recommended that the law be refined and he insinuated the definition to a. exclude boys below the age of 14 from statutory rape or b. the law is nothing but a “paternalistic anachronism” and should be disregarded in our time and age.
With these 2 premise in mind, it is suggestive that the author does not just wish for th law to be redefined but removed due to it’s inadequacy in this day and age. No doubt he is suggesting a new law be made to “balance out” the consequences of both male and female.
Not to delve too much into what is typing “redefine” a law when you fundamentally want to change the spirit in which it is built on (ie. men would be found guilty if he has sex with a girl under 14 with/without consent)?
With regards to the other topic at hand, Abstinence is not working. Teenagers will always be motivated to try something new and it behooves logic to not prepare them for it when the time comes.
Indeed, many of us are missing the point entirely. I am assuming most people who think the law is great as it is somewhere in the age range of 35-60 and probably has a daughter of his own.
There is nothing wrong with caring for the well being of your children. There is something wrong with expecting the government to do it for you. Underage sex IS a social issue. Arguing that it is a crime is like saying a a 14 year old sneaking into his father’s minibar and taking a shot of vodka is a crime. It’s not, it parental negligence or teenage rebellion. Selling that liquor to a 14 year old is the crime here.
While sex has its fair share of risks, especially if both parties are underage, arresting them and tarnishing their future is ridiculously pointless. If one party, either male or female, was over 14 or worst still, much much older than that, then there is an obvious benefit to pressing charges on the older and presumably wiser party. Here’s a fairer and more helpful law perhaps…
Statutary rape is re-defined as: Any man or woman above the age of 14 having sexual relations of any sort with a person below that age has comitted statutary rape.
Punishments:
1. If both parties are 14 or below, they will BOTH be sent for counselling. Their parents will be counselled too to ensure that everyone understands that this is a social issue to be worked on at home. Parents will then help their children to understand the consequences of underaged sex and work towards a better more communicative household. (this might be difficult with the more conservative uncles and aunties but we should at least TRY)
2. If one party is above 14 but below 18, he/she will be sent to a reform centre of some sort. Boys town or girls town for no more than 2 years where there will be mild punishments and no lasting criminal record.
3. If one party is above 18, he/she will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Jail, canning whatever it takes to get this predator off the streets.
Many of Singapore’s laws are just there to make thing easier for policy makers and life easier for Singaporeans who can’t be bothered figuring out any ethics or morality. Simple black and whites are fine for most of these people. Human rights need to be taken into account now if Singapore wants to continue considering itself a democratic country where everyone has rights.
mockingbird.sg
i do not believe for a minute that abstinence is not working. if it weren’t, my 14-year-old sister who has countless male friends would be out there experimenting, thinking that a condom would be sufficient to protect her from pregnancy, STDs and other potential emotional stress. abstinence is a choice and it is a choice that works.
i do not believe for a second that teenagers are not equipped with the logic and self-mastery to delay sex / abstain from casual sex just because “they are teenagers and are going to experiment”.
sure, go ahead and teach them contraception, but who says abstinence doesn’t work just because they’re young and have raging hormones?
your fatalistic attitude disgusts me.
I prefer the “statutory rape” law to be retool to become a “sex-with-a-minor” law and this new law to be applied to minors of both gender. Only offenders above the minor age can be charged.
If I understand correctly, this law is here to protect against child exploitation. I believe at the time when the law was enacted, no one anticipated the current application of this law – for taking underage boys to task for having mutual sex with underage girl.
As far as sex education is concern, I believe the youngsters should be taught to protect themselves and at the same time, be strongly encouraged to avoid sex till they are above 18. Family should comes in as well to enforce on the moral aspect.
So what if >sophie
Feb 11, 2010 15:4< 14 year old sister is still a virgin?
Why should the law be concerned if she is virgin or not?
Surely it is an issue, if sophie's parents want to make out of it, for the family to decide and NOT for the state to concern itself with. And neither should sophie or anyone else impose their values on another who does not share the same values.
Please state clearly why sex after puberty is wrong whatever the age with the caveat that precautions have been taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
If it is wrong for teenagers to engage in sex then why is it not wrong for others, whether married or not, to do the same?
As for lobo 76 trying to pull a fast one with his analogy of father teaching his son to play with knife, sex is a primordial need of mammals, whereas playing with knife is probably in lobo 76's imagination. It just goes to show that people like lobo have run out of arguments.