Recently, I participated as an intern with the Singaporean
top-tier law firm, Dodwell & Co and it was an amazing experience, albeit,
far too short. After interning for six weeks with the Malaysian Centre for
Constitutionalism and Human Rights, I wasn’t really sure what Singapore would
be like.
I know from the moment that I arrived, the contrast between
Malaysia and Singapore was readily apparent. I almost felt like I’d gone from
the chaos of a spin dryer to an elevator, complete with the piped music.
Starting anything new is always a bit nerve wracking and the
first impression I wanted to make as I walked through the door straight from
the airport, ended up being a stark deviation to my reality. I was tired; my
hair a complete frizz from the humidity and lugging a large suitcase had left a
great ladder running up my stockings. As I required scissors to open up the
security tabs on my bag to grab a fresh pair, I just hoped that it wasn’t
obvious. It was!
The time I spent there was the most challenging time of all
my internships. Not only was I dealing with law for the first time from a
practical perspective, I also had to question my values derived from a feminist
ideology and I was surprised when I found myself saying that the law pertaining
to under-aged prostitution in Singapore, was incorrect. I worked on a couple of
cases with the firm, but I found this one to be the most intriguing.
Singapore recently changed their laws to stop the Asian
trafficking of minors for the sole purpose of sex, but in doing so, they
omitted mens rea, or in layman’s
terms, ‘a guilty mind’ or ‘criminal intent’.
In all commonwealth countries except Singapore, when a
person has sex with a prostitute under the age of 18, the courts will look at
the person’s intention and if the person has taken reasonable steps to ensure
she is over 18, the legal system will take this into consideration and most
likely, no charges will be laid.
Let’s be realistic, people will frequent prostitutes and if
the person is willingly selling their body for sex, the predominantly male
clientele do have this right to participate in an act of sex with a prostitute,
without any repercussions. Furthermore,
it is not an illegal act to obtain the services of a sex worker in Singapore.
To me, it isn’t some moralistic dilemma and if a woman has
made the choice to sell her body without any coercion, she has the freedom to
do this within a safe environment; but I must admit, that any form of child
abuse, including the act of having sex with a child whilst paying her, is
abhorrent and the adult should be charged accordingly.
So, how did I find myself saying that in the case of the
under-aged prostitute and the 50 plus men who were charged in Singapore, it is
the men, who are in fact the victims?
For those who aren’t aware of the situation in Singapore,
over 50 men were charged with having sex with an under-aged prostitute and the
facts of the case are:
·
She was advertised on the website as being 18
·
In all correspondence with the ‘pimp’, the
clients were told she was 18
·
Some of the men had actually wanted a particular
older girl, but were told that she was busy.
·
Some of the men had directly asked the girl how
old she was and she replied that she was 18.
·
One man even went so far to ask the girl for
identification and in response to this, she proceeded to show an ID, but
unbeknownst to him, it was a fake ID.
·
It must be noted that the girl was over 17 and
in some cases, a few months less than 18
·
The age of consent in Singapore is 16.
(Therefore, if no money was paid, none of these men would have been charged)
In Parliament, it was discussed that the ‘intention and need
to protect minors from sexual exploitation’ was their reasoning for
implementing the act. Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Member of Parliament for Mountbatten)
stated: “We should not allow such young
and impressionable persons to be exploited by sexual predators”. Hence, the
‘provision was enacted in 2007 by parliament with the express purpose of
protection of young and vulnerable persons from sexual exploitation’[1].
So the question must therefore be asked, were the clients sexual predators
exploiting a minor? The answer is a resounding, no. They were not looking for a
minor to have sex with and as such is my reasoning for being on the client’s
side.
Singapore ratified the act to be in line with the rest of
the commonwealth and derived the law from a Canadian Act, but in doing so,
omitted the defence afforded to every other Commonwealth nation, if the client
takes reasonable steps to ensure that the prostitute is over 18, no crime was
committed. One must therefore ask, why did Singapore fail to include this
defence in The Act?
To be honest, how can anyone now be sure that they are not
committing a crime? I imagine the only way to ensure this, is if they seek out
a prostitute who is closer to 60. In this day and age and the way many girls
present themselves, one can never be sure of the age of someone and if they are
told that the person is over the age 18, one usually believes that they are being
told the truth, but unfortunately in Singapore, a person can no longer be
afforded this luxury.
I do understand why the law was implemented and I
wholeheartedly agree with their underlying principles, but I do grapple with
why Singapore failed to implement this defence.
Yes, sex with a minor is a heinous crime, but if these men
thought they were being told the truth by the advertisement on the internet,
via messages with the pimp, through the interaction with the prostitute and even
by being shown identification by the girl that she was over 18, how can these
men end up finding themselves in jail for a period of time, when their
intention was never to have sex with a minor? Therefore, how do they have a
guilty mind?
So, it comes to play, that the majority of these men have
now had their reputations tarnished with a criminal record and have spent a period
of time in jail, the remaining men are still attempting to fight this in the
courts. As in the world of Monopoly, after one wrong roll of the dice and
irrespective of your surrounding circumstances, one must go directly to jail
and one must definitely not collect $200.
There is no defence, one cannot plead innocence in their
defence, and they cannot argue that their intention was never to have sex with
a minor, they cannot argue, as in every other Commonwealth country, that they
went to reasonable steps to ensure that the girl was over 18.
This is wrong, very wrong.
I did learn a lot from my time at Dodwell & Co, and I
feel very privileged to have this opportunity to watch how a law firm works
from a practical perspective. I was able to follow two of my colleagues to
court to watch them appear, I was asked my opinion on a number of issues and I
was treated like part of the team.
The only negative perspective was that I didn’t manage to
spend more time there. It was a valuable experience, one that will hold me in
good stead in my future career.
