It is surprising that the it took the harsh sentencing of one
individual - being sentenced to a 24 months jail term for 'oral
sex' with a minor - to awaken our Lawmakers to reveiw the Penal
Code.
At the Appeals Court, was the Chief Justice in touch with the
development of the social norms and practises of Singapore Society,
its respective cultures unique to each ethnic group ?
In approving the appeals for a reduction of an earlier lower court
sentencing, the Chief Justice had also said:
While he accepted that other countries would not view oral sex as a
crime, 'there are certain offences against Asian culture'.
Is 'Oral Sex' offensive in most Asian Culture ?
It seems that 'oral sex' was euphemystically referred to as
'Playing the Flute' in ancient Chinese poems, and this was also
generally repeated in the Indian, Japanese and Korean historical
and cultural references too.
This 'Oral' practise seems to be prevalent and accepted by the New
Generation - across most nationalities in Asia - in their new found
sexual exposures, experiences, and preferences.
Meanwhile the conservatives and less exposed may cringe at the
slightest thought, but seems to be easy convert after some gentle
awakening experiences.
Are our Legislators in Singapore being prudish and not in keeping
with social developments ?
CJ halves
oral-sex sentence
By Elena Chong
THE Chief Justice yesterday halved a former police sergeant's
two-year jail sentence for having oral sex with a 15-year-old
girl.
But those waiting to see how CJ Yong Pung How would deal with the
controversial issue of oral sex must wait a few days for his
reasons.
The offence by Annis went against Asian
culture, the CJ said.
He did not go beyond saying that 'this
is Asia' where certain actions are frowned upon. This is
why, he added, Singapore's Penal Code has section 377, which
criminalises 'carnal intercourse against the order of
nature'.
Until Parliament decides otherwise, 'I am guided by the Penal
Code,' he said.
The sentencing of at least three men convicted of oral sex had been
postponed in recent months as the judges wanted to see how the CJ
would decide on the appeal of Annis Abdullah.
It was the 27-year-old's case which threw the spotlight on oral
sex, an offence which attracts a maximum punishment of life
imprisonment.
Given that the girl, whose age was then given as 16, had consented
to oral sex, some people felt the two-year jail term for Annis was
too harsh.
Also, there had been calls to decriminalise consensual oral sex
between men and women. Parliament was told last month that this
might well happen, as part of a review of the Penal Code to be
completed in two to three months.
But a new twist emerged nine days after Annis' sentencing on Nov
28: It transpired that the girl was 15 when the offence was
committed.
District Judge Wong Keen Onn said that had he known that the girl
was a minor, 'that fact would be regarded as an added aggravating
factor for the purpose of sentencing'.
Yesterday, the charge still stood under the Penal Code, although
the mistake over the girl's age was rectified. Other laws governing
minors, such the Women's Charter, do not deal with oral sex.
Arguing against the sentence, Annis' new lawyer, Mr S.S. Dhillon,
suggested that consent on the part of the girl should be a 'highly
mitigatory factor'.
He also said that contrary to earlier statements tendered at the
lower court, his client did not meet the girl through the Internet
Relay Chat (IRC).
Annis' computer seized by the police did not show this and it was
the victim, he said, who had contacted his client first after they
met at a Pasir Ris chalet in March last year.
He asked, and the girl agreed, to perform oral sex on him when they
met at Chinese Garden Road a month later.
'This is not a case where the appellant had preyed on the victim or
he had forced her into doing something or coerced her into doing
something,' he said.
He also tendered several cases in the Subordinate Courts which
imposed between four months and one year on oral-sex
offenders.
An appeal against two years' jail was made by Annis (centre) and
lawyers Dhillon (left) and Terence Hua. -- LIANHE ZAOBAO
Given that Annis was a first-time offender, he suggested that 'a
slap on the cheek' or 'a knock on his knuckle' would suffice as
punishment rather than 'the thrashing' he received.
The CJ said there was no way the court could be guided by past
cases as it all depended on the facts of each case.
While he accepted that other countries
would not view oral sex as a crime, 'there are certain offences
against Asian culture'.
But on Mr Dhillon's argument that the two-year sentence was
'unprecedented', the CJ replied: 'That is really your strongest
point'.
He halved the sentence and said that he would write his grounds
soon in view of the various cases pending.
Outside the courtroom, Mr Dhillon told reporters that his client,
who got married last week, was 'extremely pleased' with the
decision.
'Now that the sentence has been reduced, the pressure is off him.
He wants to get on to serve it, pay for his crime, go back to start
life afresh,' he said.
Straits Times, 18 February 2004 Edition
This article will be archived on 21 February 2004
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,235754,00.html?
