Marital rape law reforms inadequate, say some; continued outlawing of gay sex also questioned

THE private lives of Singaporeans appear to be the main concern among those who responded to the Government's call for feedback to last month's proposed changes to the Penal Code.
After a month-long feedback period which ended on Saturday, the Home Affairs Ministry received 252 responses from individuals, groups and some lawyers.

Most of the comments touched on the country's controversial sex laws, especially marital rape and gay sex.

Another main concern was whether the tripling of fines for all crimes would cause more offenders to be jailed because they cannot pay up.

Lawyers also called for judges to be given more discretion during sentencing.

A former deputy public prosecutor who is now in private practice, Mr Thomas Koshy, wanted mandatory minimum sentences removed for more offences. He said the judiciary was much stronger now than in 1973, when compulsory minimum sentences for offences like robbery were imposed.

'The courts have shown a sentencing discipline even beyond what is prescribed by the law.

This shows the law doesn't need to tie the judges' hands,' said Mr Koshy.

One change welcomed by all - harsher laws against paedophiles, both within the country and those who commit their crimes overseas.

The Law Society has until February to submit its suggestions, after which a draft amendment will be tabled in Parliament within the first half of next year.

This is the first major review of the Penal Code since 1984 and is intended to bring the law in line with the times.

However, the changes to Singapore's key criminal legislation has not garnered as much interest as when the idea of opening a casino in Singapore was first mooted.

After media reports of the proposed changes to the law last month, The Straits Times Forum received only two letters. The casino debate generated more than 100 letters.

The groups which submitted their feedback largely focused on the sex laws.
One of the main contentions was the 'inadequate' changes to marital rape laws.

Currently, a husband cannot be charged with raping his wife, even when she rejects his advances.

The proposed changes would make this possible in cases where the wife had obtained a protection order against the husband, or a court injunction restraining him from having sex with her, or if the couple are living separately or waiting for a divorce to be finalised.

The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) wants marital immunity to be totally removed.

The women's group said marital rape was more serious as most of these victims were likely to have been raped multiple times - a Malaysian study estimates over 20 times - before they report it.

Marital rape is also more traumatic than rape by strangers, Aware said, because of a greater 'sense of betrayal' and the fact that the rape took place at home, which the victim sees as safe and loving.

Human rights activist Alex Au felt most raped wives would be too 'disempowered' to dare to or know how to 'arm themselves' with such legal protection.

Another hot topic was the continued outlawing of gay sex, with at least four groups raising the matter.

The Free Community Church , which supports homosexuality, said this was 'not reflective of the moral values of today's Singapore '.

Aware also weighed in with its support to scrap section 377 (A) - the part of the Penal Code which bans acts of 'gross indecency' between men.

Calling this law an 'unwarranted intrusion' into private lives, Aware said the police should be spending time on more pressing matters than enforcing anti-gay sex laws.

The Free Community Church - which has under 100 members - also argued that singling out a certain group in society was unconstitutional as everyone should be equal before the law.

The ministry explained last month that society, especially religious groups, was not ready to tolerate gay sex.

But Aware said: 'Many religions also think that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong, but Singapore does not criminalise that.'

The groups also said the Government's pledge not to actively enforce this law if the acts occurred in private was a 'mockery of the law' as the Government had to enforce laws passed by Parliament.