The Home Affairs Ministry has said before that when it cracks down on illegal immigrants it treats both trafficked persons and illegal immigrants the same way.

Illegal immigrants face caninig, jail, deportation etc.  If you don't make any distinction between them and victims of trafficking then what is basically happening is that those victims are being caned, jailed and deported because they were tricked or coerced. That was their crime.

If that's the case, as a victim of trafficking, would you dare to come forward? Would you tell the police what has happened to you? I would have thought, surely not. And if you don't tell the police and you don't testify in court because you are afraid of law enforcement action, who is going to catch the traffickers?

If we don't catch traffickers and put them in jail, what deters them from trafficking?

parn: I agree that there are stigmas associated with reporting rape that need to be addressed.  But rape is rape regardless of the prior relationship (or lack of relationship) between the rapist and the victim.  Stranger rape is not any more "real" than marital rape.

jojobeach: it doesn't matter if he has an erection.  If he doesn't consent to sex, it's rape.  People can be physically aroused but still feel that in all the circumstances they do not want to have sex at that point of time, with the person in question.  Nobody else should get to examine their body and decide on whether sex is appropriate. They themselves decide.

Jojobeach, evidence of physical arousal doesn't mean that the physically aroused person will always want to have sex with anything in sight.  Just because a man has an erection, or a woman is experiencing vaginal lubrication (for example), doesn't mean it's okay to try to engage in intercourse with them if they are non-consenting.  It's still rape.

elementalangel, so do you think we should make exceptions for the crimes of murder, theft, poisoning, knifing and beating someone, just because the victim is the husband or wife of the perpetatror?

Obviously if you could tell in advance that someone was going to beat and rape you, if you had any choice you wouldn't want to marry them. But over time, people may change, or in different circumstances people may show sides to them you hadn't seen before.  Domestic violence happens. Murder between spouses does occur.  Nobody would dream of saying that a woman who killed her husband, or a man who broke his wife's arm, should be exempt from the laws against murder or assault.  Why change this for rape?

Rape is already a crime under the law.  We all recognise (I hope!) this is necessary. But the Penal Code contains an extra provision saying that this does not apply when the rapist is married to the victim.  I'm saying get rid of the extra provision. 

The question is whether something which was wrongful violence outside of marriage, can suddenly become acceptable within marriage.

parn, subsection (4) is an exception to subsection (1).  Subsection (1) is subject to subsection (4).  In other words, rape is forced intercourse by a man with a woman except where they are married.

Elementalangel, if you marry a serial killer and get killed, it is THE SERIAL KILLER'S fault.  Just as if your husband rapes you, it is YOUR HUSBAND'S fault.  The law should reflect this.

What aspect of this do you think is nonsense?  The first post is a bit disjointed because there was originally a line saying "Visit [this site] for...", but it was moderated to take out the link, so the second half doesn't seem to make much sense now.  But otherwise, why would you think it was nonsense?

oxford mushroom, I am a Singaporean.  I am asking fellow Singaporeans, including presumably you, to change their minds.  How are "Singaporeans" going to "decide" on changes in "societal and cultural norms" other than through conversation with one another?  Why do you retreat into some imputed notion of what "we" support rather than just making up your own mind as a person?  Do you support making both changes or do you not?  That's the important question, not what you imagine everyone else thinks.

I find it bizarre that you think the situation where both sides are screwed over (women can be raped, men are subject to undue financial burdens) is preferable to a situation where only one side is screwed over.  Everyone in the misery together, somehow that's better?  For the record, I support gender-neutral maintenance laws REGARDLESS of whether marital rape is also criminalised.  But I likewise support criminalising marital rape regardless of the maintenance laws. Each is a separate injustice that needs to be dealt with.

It is deeply anti-human to believe it's acceptable for society to have "package deals" where financial contributions justify non-consensual penetration.  What's the difference between marriage and sex slavery then?  Slaves get financially maintained as well, you know?  As do farm animals.  (And yes, I know where marital rape immunity historically came from.  Britain traditionally treated women like chattel.  It's now moving away from that I would hope that Singapore can do so too.)

oxford mushroom: I agree with you that maintenance laws should not assume the man should pay the woman.  However, I think that unpaid labour within the marriage, as well as sacrifices of individual earning capacity for the financial welfare of the overall partnership, should be taken into account when distributing assets.  For many couples in the older generations where gender roles were extremely rigid, in practice this will often mean men will end up paying more maintenance.

To me however, all this is separate from the issue of marital rape.  Nobody is entitled to use another person's body sexually without their consent.  It is violence.  Nobody should see "submitting to violence" as a "conjugal duty".  Violence is always unacceptable.  We already recognised that women and men cannot hit their spouses; why does this change when the beating is with a sexual organ instead of a fist?

dumbdumb: if violence by one category of person against another is not recognised for what it is, that is basically saying violence by the first category against the second category is okay.  That means there is a hierarchy, the first category of people is allowed to dominate the second.  There is nothing ambiguous about whether that is inequality or not.

Indeed, I have written to my MPs, and my first post was actually including a URL for those who are interested in taking action to access to find out how to work to change the law.  It's been moderated though.  If anyone is interested PM me and I will end you the website.

Yamizi:

Yes, grievous hurt is another example.  But again, why are we shying away from calling the incident rape?  Not just outrage of modesty, not just grievous hurt, but rape.  If rape is not the same as grievous hurt outside of marriage, why does this change within marriage?  The law should reflect what things are.  Forced sex is rape, and someone who forces sex on someone should be formally censured by criminal law as a rapist.  Marriage has no bearing on the question.

A raped wife can already divorce the husband for the incident.  This was brought up in Parliament in 2004.  So taking away immunity from criminal law for marital rape does not affect the divorce proceeding.  It just means that proper criminal proceedings can also be taken, in addition to divorce proceedings.  It means recognising that rape is more than just "a reason to divorce someone".  It is worse than something like "adultery" or "irreconcilable differences".  It is sexual violence, which cannot be tolerated in a decent society, and which should be addressed with criminal punishment and a criminal record.

I know that wives were traditionally seen as property of their husbands.  That view is wrong, and the law needs to change.

purpledragon84:

Criminal proceedings are separate from divorce proceedings.  It's already possible for wives to file for divorce now; making marital rape a crime doesn't affect that.  What isn't possible is for rapists (of their wives) to be punished under criminal law.  Also, we already recognise that spouses cannot hit each other.  At the moment wives could also falsely claim that their husbands hit them, but we rely on the legal system to make sure their claims are discredited.  Surely you don't think the risk of false allegations in divorce proceedings means we should allow men to hit their wives?  Why does the situation change when the beating is with a penis instead of a fist?

yamizi:

Maybe my first post was not very clear.  At the moment, the Penal Code says specifically that an act that would normally be rape, is exempted from being rape, just because the rapist is married to the victim.  I am suggesting that the exemption be removed.

Yes, there are other offences relating to sexual violence: for instance, there is outrage of modesty.  However, rape is more serious than outrage of modesty, and in every case where the offender is not married to the victim the law now recognises this.  But when it comes to spouses the classification "rape" is suddenly removed.  So the only relevant question here is whether marriage means we think a rape is somehow less serious than it would be outside of marriage. 

Why would someone think that except based on old-fashioned and sexist ideas about men owning their wives? 

The distinction cannot be based on the risk of false allegations.  At the moment a girlfriend who is not married to her boyfriend can falsely allege rape; a woman can falsely allege rape by her colleague; a student can falsely allege rape by her classmate; a businesspersoncan falsely allege rape by a business rival... just as all these people can falsely allege they were slapped or kicked by the other person.  In every crime (NOT just rape, NOT just sex crime) with every set of people there is ALWAYS the risk of false allegations.  We rely on proper police investigation, proper screening by the Attorney-General's Chambers, and proper examination of the evidence by judges, to prevent injustices from being done.  Why should rape within marriage be seen as so special as to be taken outside of this process, so that even where the evidence is overwhelming it is not considered rape?

4Justice, thanks for your very cogent arguments.  I admire your patience in continuing to engage these sexists!

It's very sad that anyone should see sex as an 'obligation' or to see the right to penetrate an unwilling women who feels neither pleasure nor desire as an important part of marriage.  You're never entitled to use someone else's body without their consent, and marriage doesn't change that.  If you want sex with someone, you have to see what you can do about getting them to want sex with you too; and if they don't, you just have to accept it.  It's their body.  You don't own it.

And there are many barriers towards making false allegations - what exactly would women get out of it?!  Many people who report rape, especially by their husbands, are disbelieved and shamed by other people, as there is still (wrongfully) a stigma attached to being a rape victim, which discourages many people from coming forward when they are real victims, let alone inventing trouble for themselves by making false reports.  

But even where false allegations are made, as with all other offences, if there is insufficient evidence, either the police will discontinue investigation, the prosecutor will decide not to take the case forward, or the courts will acquit.  This is the same for ALL offences, why should marital rape be specially exempt even from investigation? 

The effect of the current law is that even if the evidence is 100% clearcut - for example, the rape led to vaginal injuries and there is DNA evidence - the husband is STILL not considered a rapist.  This is totally unacceptable.

I posted a URL which I think must have been against forum rules as the moderator removed it, so my first message looks a bit disjointed... sorry. If anyone wants to know about the website where I mentioned there is more information (including responses to the questions about false accusations) please feel free to PM me.

Under the Penal Code in Singapore, a man who forces intercourse upon his wife is not taken to have committed rape, unless they were separated or she had previously taken out a protection order or injunction against sexual intercourse against him.

This is wholly unacceptable. Women's rights to protection of bodily security and sovereignty should not vapourise upon marriage. It is absurd to require legal applications for orders and injunctions against being attacked. Sexual violence by any person against any person should always be criminal.



* Suggestions for action you can take to help change the law.

* A model letter you can customise and send to your MPs, the Prime Minister, the newspapers, and your school or company or club newsletters.

* A Cheat Sheet responding to common arguments against criminalising marital rape.