The law requiring sex workers to be 18 or older is in line with the practice of most developed nations.
In the Singapore context, it is actually a very recent implementation. Up until a few years ago, Singapore did not have such a law.
16 was, and still is, the age of sexual consent and so long as the act is not forced, it is legal to have sex with anyone above 16.
But this latest law makes it an offence to have sex with a sex worker above 16, THOUGH IT IS NOT AN OFFENCE TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE ABOVE 16, PROVIDED SHE IS NOT A SEX WORKER!
It will be interesting to see how the men are sentenced – whether the judge will order imprisonment for the offenders. Judging by previous cases, the men will each be jailed for less than a year. In my opinion, this is still manifestly excessive. And more than just the imprisonment, the lives of these men are going to be profoundly affected for the worst – and for what? What real crime has been committed? What harm has been done to Singapore society? Lives destroyed for having sex with someone whom they assumed it was ok to have sex with???
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fnulnu88
If the law allows a teenager above 16 to work, wouldn’t this mean the teenager is considered matured enough?
Matured enough to understand or take instructions; or understand the law enough to know what is right and what is wrong.
So, if a teenager decides to work but in this case, working as a freelance, she already broken the law in the first place, because, although she is above 16, she cannot by law work as a freelance.
This is not true, however, if the gal is being trafficked by syndicates from a different country and forced to be a freelance, the law is designed to protect the gals who falls under this category; hence she will not be prosecuted.
So, this become a Catch-22, we can’t increase the working legal age of 16-years old, yet, we cannot lower the current law of legal prostitution of 18-years old.
The question now lies is - How do we protect men who use freelance who was not truthful about their age?
There must be a law on this, or else, many men who holds high positions, may succumbed to this unfair law in more months to come (casino?), who are we to blame? the small “brain” below or the man who created the unfair law “above”?
And Singapore being a tiny country cannot afford a brain drain to happen, despite the brain drain is only to Changi (sic).
Sex workers, underaged or not, have not broken any laws unless they actively solicit their services in the streets, or commit some other crime. Sex work, per se, is not illegal in Singapore.
And of cos, the point is to be fair to all men (not just those in high positions), who employ the services of sex workers.
As has been suggested, the fairest judgement is to impose a fine rather than a custodial sentence as long as it is established that the men were not actively seeking to exploit the underaged, but had been unwittingly misled into thinking that the sex workers whose company they sought were 18 years or older.
Not six, but nine men, were charged in court for having sex with underaged Vietnamese sex workers recently.
Interestingly, out of the nine, only one could be considered a young man. He is a student, aged 24. The others were all forty or older – in fact the majority were in their fifties, and the oldest was 68.
Could this be taken as the representative profile of those who employ the services of sex workers?
If so, then it can also be implied that sex work generally fulfills a real need because in all likelihood, the men were simply not getting it from their wives – which is kinda natural since women of menopausal age tend to be less interested in sex and some might even experience pain due to vaginal dryness – a natural consequence of ageing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tenable
If the man has been “unwittingly misled”, shouldn’t there be a proviso excusing him?
No… going by previous judgments of similar cases, pleading ignorance is not a justifiable excuse for breaking the law.
The law against engaging with sex with sex workers under 18 is actually a recent one and was enacted only in 2008.
This is the govt’s rationale for the law:
Commercial sex with minor under 18
Whilst prostitution per se is not an offence, new section 376B (Commercial sex with minor under 18) will make it an offence for a person to solicit, communicate or obtain sexual services from a minor under 18 years of age. Young persons, because they are immature and vulnerable and can be exploited, should be protected from providing sexual services. Although there is no evidence to suggest that we have a problem with 16 and 17 year olds engaging in commercial sex in Singapore, we decided to set the age of protection at 18 years so as to protect a higher proportion of minors. By doing so, we join other countries such as the UK and Australia which have also adopted the approach of criminalising commercial sexual activities with persons under 18 years of age, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and the Stockholm Declaration and Agenda for Action 1996 whilst maintaining the age of consent for consensual non-commercial sexual activities at 16 years of age.
Second Reading Speech of The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, by Senior Minister of State A/P Ho Peng Kee on 22 October 2007
Prior to 2008, the 44 men who were recently charged with engaging the services of a certain underaged sex worker would not have been guilty of any offence, provided she is above 16.
Commercial sex with minor under 18 376B.—(1) Any person who obtains for consideration the sexual services of a person, who is under 18 years of age, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both….
Note that the punishment could be a jail term, or a fine, or both.
The judge, in other words, has the discretion of just imposing a fine. Judges however tend to rely on the sentencing practices of prior cases. And in previous cases, such offences have led to custodial sentences of between about four to nine months.
The sentencing of the 44 persons is not likely to be different UNLESS the lawyer representing the men can convince the judge that these latest cases are somehow different from the previous ones.
Can Subhas Anandan (or any of the other lawyers representing the men) be as good as Perry Mason, or even David Marshall?
The ex-principal involved in the case is the only one of the 44 men charged who decided to plead guilty. Was this a wise move?
44 men charged with having paid sex with underage girl
FORTY-FOUR men, including nine public servants, were yesterday charged with having paid sex with an underage girl.
Bar one, they all claimed trial, and are expected to say they did not know she was a minor when they did the deed.
A gasp went round a packed Subordinate Court 26 as former Pei Chun Public School principal Lee Lip Hong, 39, emerged as the only one to plead guilty.
Lee, who resigned unexpectedly last December, faces two charges of having had paid sex with the girl, a Singaporean, in September and December 2010. His case will come up on Friday next week.
Prostitution is allowed here, but having paid sex with a person under 18 is illegal; the laws were tightened in 2008.
Lee and the others were picked up late last year in one of the largest sting operations against underage prostitution here since the new laws kicked in.
The accused, aged 21 to 48, include a former police superintendent, military officers, a lawyer, businessmen and people in finance and other professions.
They allegedly engaged the girl for paid sex between September 2010 and February last year, with most of them having had one encounter with her; four allegedly hired her twice, and one, businessman Foo Kim Meng, 45, is said to have had paid sex with her at least four times, the most among the 44 men.
It also came to light in court yesterday that the girl’s services were touted on a website allegedly run by Tang Boon Thiew, who owns an online marketing firm. He was charged last November with running the online vice ring and also faces one count of paying the girl for sex.
The high-profile case made the headlines in February as the men were called up for questioning by the police.
The Straits Times understands that phone records and information found in Tang’s laptop had implicated the men.
Those who are claiming trial have a June 11 date to keep for a discovery conference, a meeting at which the prosecution and defence teams exchange information on the case. Those without lawyers have a week to hire one.
(The Straits Times, 17th April, 2012)
Prominent local newsmaker Howard Shaw was among four additional men that were charged in court on Wednesday for having paid sex with an underaged prostitute.
Aside from Shaw, former UBS top banker and Swiss national Buergin Juerg, ex- teacher Chua Ren Cheng and 49-year-old Edward Whistler Go were also charged…
(Yahoo News, 18th Apr 2012)
The judges who are trying this latest case may find themselves in a difficult position. Should they jail all the men who were charged, each for several months, even though probably none of them knew that they were breaking the law? The fact that some of the men hold high positions in the community will add to the pressure.
On the other hand, going by the previous cases, similar offences have resulted in sentences ranging from about four to nine months jail. Will the judges dare to depart from these precedents?
My contention right from the start was that the sentencing for such offences had been too harsh. Now that such a large number of offenders are involved, this fact will be glaringly clear. Can it be right and appropriate to jail so many people for several months each for doing something which they had not realised was against the law? Where is the criminal intent?
In fact the only one with the criminal intent was the pimp. Ironically however, he is likely to get away lightly because he had closely cooperated with the authorities. Has the cause of justice been truly served???