>I have discussed the notorape petition from the social perspective.
Family Busters on the loose again
In this article, we would be looking at the issue from the legal perspective. I am going to quote Mr Chan Wing Cheong from School of Law NUS, and presenter of the Notorape Seminar held on 7 Aug 09.
The argument of notorape supporters is that current laws are inadequate. See article from notorape site below.
http://www.notorape.com/blog/2009/07/21/public-prosecutor-v-n-facts/
The legal judgment in the marital rape case of Public Prosecutor v N [1999] 4 SLR 619, which we have referred to several times in the FAQ, is dated 26 August, 1 October 1999. In August this year is the 10th anniversary of that first date – and the issues raised in the case remain as important as ever. Here is the summary of the facts in the legal judgment.
—-
On 18 August 1998, while the respondent was away on overseas training, he paged for her. She responded to his paging and contacted him by telephone. In the course of the conversation, an argument ensued over the payment of his handphone bill. When the wife suggested that they get a divorce, the respondent was very upset and angry. He threatened to kill her if she dared to leave him. The wife was very frightened and she believed that he would carry out his threat upon his return from his training in less than three weeks’ time. This was because he spoke in a very fierce manner and he had on previous occasions behaved violently towards her.
Upon the respondent’s return to Singapore on 4 September 1998, he asked the wife to meet him, promising that they would have a peaceful talk. During a discussion at the void deck at Blk 410 Serangoon Central later in the evening, the respondent and the wife quarrelled again. He dragged her into his car and drove her back to their house at Rivervale Road. Upon arrival, he ordered her to go to their apartment bedroom. To avoid a scene, she did as she was told. He followed her into the bedroom and locked the door after them.
The wife was seated on the bed when the respondent hugged her. When she struggled to free herself, he turned violent and forcibly stripped her of her clothes. He then used a bath towel to tie her hands together and used another piece of cloth to gag her. Thereafter, he proceeded to engage in sexual intercourse with her against her will.
After that, he helped her to put on her pair of shorts and panties before untying her. He then took out a blouse which he had bought for her and told her to put it on. She resisted. This was followed by another physical struggle by her which ended with his slapping her across her face. When the respondent had calmed down, the wife told him that she wanted to go back to her parents’ place. The respondent agreed and drove her back to Serangoon Central.
—-
The man in this case was not charged or convicted of rape, but only of much lesser charges relating to the other aggressive behaviour, carrying far less severe penalties than those associated with rape.
The law has since been amended, but the notorapers are not satisfied. Here is their argument.
Again from the Notorape site
http://www.notorape.com/petition/
CURRENT EXCEPTIONS ARE INADEQUATE
Currently, Section 375(4) and Section 376A(5) do allow for some cases of marital rape to be treated as rape. These are, primarily, where the perpetrator and victim are “living apart” and certain steps have been taken to terminate the marriage (e.g. proceedings for divorce or separation), or steps have been taken to obtain a public protection order or injunction against sexual intercourse against the perpetrator.
This is inadequate. Marital rape is a form of violence, and all people in Singaporean society should be protected by the law against violence to their person, without having to make legal arrangements. Engaging these legal procedures presents particular difficulties for minors and/or women who have physical or mental disabilities, especially where they are in a position of dependence on the adult and/or able-bodied spouse. Court orders are not always available as the facilities for them are subject to operating hours. Moreover, women should not have to predict whether they will be subject to violence (or, as is often the case, suffer violence first, possibly multiple times) and make applications for court orders before the Code recognises sexual violence against them as an offence. Every instance of marital rape – not just the second, or third, or fourth – should be treated as an offence.
So the argument is that although the law has been amended, it is not enough. Now let’s see if this is so.
The following video clip is taken from the Notorape Seminar, held on 7 Aug 09.
For those who are interested in the full seminar, here is the link.
http://www.notorape.com/seminar/
So far, all the notorapers supporters have said that there is NOT ENOUGH protection. However, take a look from the 7:00 min mark. Listen to Mr Chan Wing Cheong, explaining to the audience, what are the two reasons the govt feels it does not need to amend the law any further.
The first reason given is that it will change the special marital relationship. This is actually the blanket consent I have been arguing in my first article.
The second reason given by the govt is that the wife has to signal clearly that she does not want sex.
But if the wife gave a clear signal, and the husband still forces sex on her, that’s rape, no?
So what is this notorape for, if according to Mr Chan, the govt has made it clear that if wife gives a clear no, it means no? Isn’t that what the notorapters want? Notorapers keep saying that if wife says no, it means no. Well Mr Chan, one of the presenters at the notorape seminar has clearly said that the govt said if the wife CLEARLY GIVES A NO SIGNAL, and husband forces sex, it means rape.
There you have it! Isn’t that what the notorapers want? What need to amend the law further?
Here is a
link from the Ministry of Home Affairs pertaining to the CLEAR SIGNAL above. Scroll down till you see Section 375. Read on the right-hand side of the table. This gives the explanation from the MHA for its reason for the amendment, after the PP v N case.
A calibrated approach has been taken on the issue of marital immunity. Total abolition of marital immunity would be too radical a step, as there is still a need to strike a balance between the needs of women who require protection and the general concerns about conjugal rights and the expression of intimacy in a marriage. Abolishing marital immunity may change the whole complexion of marriage in our society. The proposed calibrated approach provides the necessary protection for women whose marriages are, in practical terms, on the verge of a breakdown or have broken down, clearly signaling that her consent to conjugal relations has been withdrawn. These exceptions are applicable to spouses in both Muslim and non-Muslim marriages. In addition, the reference to matrimonial proceedings in the exceptions refers to both local and foreign matrimonial proceedings.
So the intention of the amendment is to protect the wife when the marriage has broken down. That’s what I have been saying all along too. It should NOT be used as a family breaker.
While notorapers say that no means no, what they are truly asking for in the amendment is if wife does not say yes, it means no! Now that is a very, very different thing. Removing the immunity in Section 375, would treat the silent consent by wife as silence by woman in ANY OTHER SITUATION. Wife has to say YES EACH AND EVERY TIME! SILENCE IS NOT CONSENT. That is what the notorapers are seeking!
The current amended law clearly states that there is avenue for wife to say no. Removing that would mean that the wife has to say yes, otherwise it would mean a no! – making a farce out of the institution of marriage! And that is what Mr Chan means by saying change for the better!
Very sneakily, the notorapers NEVER told you that, did they?
This is a very, very dishonest and deceitful attempt by the Radical Feminists in an attempt to swindle public opinion into signing the petition. It is a good thing the officials at the MHA have sense in their heads!
I would also say that there is a lot of dishonesty on the part of the notorapers, in citing the PP v N case. An amendment to the statute was made, in view of that case to address true rape cases (where there is visibly force by husband). Yet, these notorapers are crying that it is not sufficient.
Interestingly, Mr Wang aka Gilbert Koh, from MrWangSaysSo who handled the PP v N case has the following to say.
Cases don’t go to court, just because someone makes a police report.
The police still needs to investigate. Thereafter the prosecution still needs to form its own view whether a crime was committed or not.
So one level of check is where the prosecution chooses not to proceed, simply because the prosecution itself is not convinced that an offence had been committed (eg the prosecution thinks that there’s a good chance that the woman had made a false report).
Note also that the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, the prosecution needs to convince the judge, to a very high degree, that the husband did commit the offence (and wasn’t, say, framed by a malicious wife)
In a PP v N scenario, for example, we can be very sure of rape because there were lots of signs of a very violent struggle; the woman suffered quite severe injuries; and the man himself didn’t deny that he had forced himself on the woman etc.
In less-drastic scenarios, there is less evidence and the prosecution may drop the case because there wouldn’t be enough evidence to get a conviction anyway.
Importantly, note also that it is possible to limit the marital immunity, without completely doing away with it (although this is not what the “No to Rape” trio are pushing for).
For example, the law currently says that the husband can be charged for rape, if she had already obtained a decree of judicial separation or obtained a personal protection order.
This could be amended to say that the husband can be charged for rape, if the woman had already applied for the decree/order, and the man knew that the application had been made.
This is important because there can be a period of time between the application, and the actual granting of the decree/order.
Another possibility is to add another scenario where the husband can be charged for rape – eg where he has used force and caused some degree of injury to the woman to compel her to have sex with him.
August 15, 2009 7:03 PM
You see, there are many alternatives to arrest the problem of the husband who forces on wife. You don’t need to appease the notorapers who intend to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Or should I say, use the law to break up marriages and family.
Here is the statute the notorapers are trying to amend. Take note of Section 375 (4) iv. Yes, you don’t need to wait for the courts. You can have it written on paper too. That is enough to stop hubby from having sex with wife.
Note that the notorapers NEVER told that to you too!
Rape 375. —
(1) Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis —
(a) without her consent; or
(b) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a man who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning
(3) Whoever —
(a) in order to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection (1) ––
(i) voluntarily causes hurt to the woman or to any other person; or
(ii) puts her in fear of death or hurt to herself or any other person; or
(b) commits an offence under subsection (1) with a woman under 14 years of age without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes.
(4) No man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) against his wife, who is not under 13 years of age, except where at the time of the offence —
(a) his wife was living apart from him ––
(i) under an interim judgment of divorce not made final or a decree nisi for divorce not made absolute;
(ii) under an interim judgment of nullity not made final or a decree nisi for nullity not made absolute;
(iii) under a judgment or decree of judicial separation; or
(iv) under a written separation agreement;
(b) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for divorce, nullity or judicial separation, and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded;
(c) there was in force a court injunction to the effect of restraining him from having sexual intercourse with his wife;
(d) there was in force a protection order under section 65 or an expedited order under section 66 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) made against him for the benefit of his wife; or
(e) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for the protection order or expedited order referred to in paragraph (d), and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) (b) for an act of penetration against his wife with her consent.
There are enough provisions to protect wives against abusive husbands who force sex. The notorapers pretend there isn’t any. The notorapers want the silent consent in marriage removed and be replaced it with a firm yes from wife each and every time married couple have sex. They want it to be NO DIFFERENT from any other relationship, proving my case they want to deconstruct and destroy the special marital relationship and institution of marriage and family. In short, they are the family busters!
The notorapers should be exposed for their lies and deceit.
Notorapers are not interested in saving marriages or women in distress. They are only interested in scoring brownie points telling the world they did this for women. Never mind it wrecks the institution of marriage and family along the way.
