In October 2010 No To Rape made a submission to the Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sport’s consultation on proposed amendments to the Women’s Charter. We reiterated our call for the complete repeal of Sections 375(4) and 376A(5) of the Penal Code, and also submitted that compulsory marriage preparation courses should emphasise the importance of affirmative consent in all sexual activity.

In November 2010 we received the below response from the Ministry. The reply that we sent them today is also reproduced below.

To date, given the absence of any reply to the original petition from the Prime Minister’s Office, this is the fullest statement that we have from the government on the issue of marital rape. No To Rape is continuing to work at a grassroots level to conduct research and build community report for legislative change. If you would like to be involved, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us.

Link to our original submission here. This is the response received from the Ministry:

Dear Sir/Madam

We refer to the submission by No To Rape to MCYS via the REACH website and also to Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on 5 Oct 10 regarding the abolition of marital immunity to rape in Singapore.

2 We note No to Rape’s views with regard to sections 375(4) and 376A(5) of the Penal Code. The issue of marital rape is an understandably emotive topic. Following substantial consultation and deliberation in 2006 and 2007, the Government had moved to accord wives with greater protection by expanding the circumstances under which marital immunity is lifted, but not to abolish it altogether. This is a balanced and calibrated approach which would ensure that wives who have made clear their intent to withdraw their implicit consent to conjugal relations are protected by the law. Such an approach affords the necessary protection to women whose marriages are, in practical terms, on the verge of a breakdown or have broken down, and who have clearly signalled that they are withdrawing their implicit consent to conjugal relations, so that their husbands are forewarned that marital immunity has been lifted. At the same time, husbands who have entered into sexual activities with their wives on the basis of mutual consent are protected from accusations of rape thereafter.

3 A balance needs to be struck between various interests, such as that of protecting vulnerable women and preserving the institution of marriage. The Government believes that such a balanced and calibrated approach is a better one than abolishing marital immunity altogether and will continue to retain sections 375(4) and 376A(5) in the Penal Code.

4 Public education is key in preventing family violence. MCYS, together with our partners, conducts public education on family violence, including spousal abuse, dating violence, child abuse and elder abuse. The key messages are: Violence is not acceptable and may continue to get worse; seek help early if you are or if you know someone in a violent relationship. The public is also educated on the signs of violence and the help channels which are readily available at their neighbourhood family service centre (FSC) or family violence specialist centre. In addition, efforts are also made to provide skills on conflict resolution and building healthy relationships, and strengthening families to better cope with stresses without resorting to violence.

5 On your suggestion that compulsory marriage preparation courses should emphasise the importance of affirmative consent in all sexual activity, we will consider this suggestion when evaluating the content of the courses.

6 We wish to thank No To Rape for taking the time and effort to submit the feedback.

Rahayu Buang (Ms), Senior Assistant Director (Family Policy), Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports

This is the reply that No To Rape sent today:

Dear Ms Buang

No To Rape would like to thank you and the Ministry for responding to our submission of 5 October 2010. We are heartened by your consideration of our suggestion that the importance of affirmative consent be a component of marriage preparation courses. However, we are disappointed that the Ministry supports the retention of Sections 375(4) and 376A(5) of the Penal Code. In our view, marital rape is not simply an “emotive topic”, but an unacceptable form of violence which threatens the physical security and psychological well-being of married women.

We are troubled by your statement that only women who have taken the specific steps listed in those subsections have “made clear their intent to withdraw their implicit consent to conjugal relations”. We urge the Ministry to consider what this means, concretely and in practice, for married couples. It means that where a woman says, “No, I do not want to have sex tonight”, or “No, I do not want to have sex unless you wear that condom”, or gives any other direct indication of non-consent, she will still be understood by the law not to have “made [it] clear”. It means that unless a wife makes certain legal applications against her husband, she is obligated to have sex with him whenever he chooses – regardless of her physical condition or her own wishes, and in particular regardless of the threat of unwanted impregnation or a sexually transmitted infection.

We agree with the Ministry that balance is important. However, we submit that the complete removal of Sections 375(4) and 376A(5) would allow a fuller and fairer balance to be struck between the interests of complainants in protection from sexual violence, and rights of defendants to the due process of law. In every matter of criminal law, the police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the courts must consider all the available evidence, including the credibility of the complainant’s and defendant’s accounts, before a defendant can be charged, prosecuted or convicted. Under our proposal, this multi-layered safeguard would continue to apply to all instances of alleged marital rape. By contrast, at the moment, Sections 375(4) and 376A(5) create an imbalance by providing a blanket immunity which applies in every case regardless of the specific facts. They settle the question conclusively, dismissing all complaints of sexual violence as not amounting to “rape”, however forceful the non-consensual penetration, and however clear or overwhelming the evidence of non-consent. This applies even in cases such as PP v. N (1999), where the court concluded on the evidence that a man tied his wife up and forced her to have sex with him. Despite the changes to the law considered in 2006 and 2007, a case similar to PP v. N would still fall within Sections 375(4) and 376A(5) – and therefore not be treated as marital rape – today.

We note that Section 376 of the Penal Code, which criminalises non-consensual anal or oral penetration, as well as the non-consensual penetration of a woman’s vagina by parts of the body other than the penis, are not subject to any marital exemption whatsoever, although this provision carries the same penalty as those in contention. We struggle to understand why the police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the courts are assumed by the law and the Ministry to be less able to thoroughly and fairly consider evidence of non-consensual penile-vaginal penetration than of any other form of forced sexual penetration. We urge the Ministry to reconsider the issue of marital immunity for rape in light of the experience of Section 376 and the application of that section to all marital relationships in all circumstances.

Thank you for your attention. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like further information.

Best regards
Jolene Tan, Mark Wong and Wong Pei Chi
The No To Rape core team

Over the next few days, we will be putting together the data collected before presenting it to our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, by email and in hard copy. We will keep everyone updated on the progress of the campaign, so please continue to follow us by either signing up to our mailing list, joining our Facebook group, following us on Twitter, or simply returning to this blog from time to time.

This website will also undergo an overhaul to pave the way for future awareness raising and related issues that we will be working hard to bring to you. Stay tuned!

Once again, thank you very much for supporting our call to repeal marital rape immunity in Singapore.

A FIRST HAND WITNESS OF MARITAL RAPE. A 5 YEAR OLD CAN REMEMBER THINGS THAT LAST A LIFETIME.

- Recent message left on our Petition

This week, on 25 November, people around the world will mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

No To Rape is also entering its final week, with over 3,100 signatures on our petition to date. This is a great show of support for ending sexual violence against women in Singapore.

But as the deadline of 30 November draws near, it is more important than ever to get the word out. This week is the final window of opportunity for you and your friends and family to sign the petition.

Word of mouth, email, Facebook, Twitter, blogs – every message, and every signature, will help.

Thank you taking action to combat violence against women.

Studies have long established that people with developmental or other disabilities are disproportionately victimized in the United States. One study found that among adults with developmental disabilities, as many as 83% of females and 32% of males are the victims of sexual assault. Perhaps most astonishingly, 97%-99% of abusers are known and trusted by these victims. Victimization rates for persons with disabilities is highest for sexual assault (more than 10 times as high) and robbery (more than 12 times as high).

There are a number of factors related to the susceptibility to abuse for individuals with disabilities. In addition, there are many existing significant barriers, both real and perceived, that affect vulnerable adults and their interaction with the criminal justice system. These barriers include societal perception of disability, use of appropriate language and current realities for adults and children with disabilities.

Under the Penal Code at the moment, marital rape is excluded from the definition of rape unless the victim had taken certain legal steps, including for example applying for a personal protection order, prior to the assault.

One of the arguments set out in our Petition is that the requirement of making applications for orders, injunctions etc. may be especially difficult to fulfil for minor wives and/or women with disabilities with abusive husbands who are adult and/or able-bodied. Such girls and women are likely to be in a position of dependence – economic, or physical, or both – which makes it much harder for them to cross the extra hurdles put in place before they can seek the protection of the criminal law.

We hope that MCYS and the government will pay close attention to the implications of the presentation for the Penal Code. The situation in the United States may not be directly comparable to the situation in Singapore. But if women with disabilities are especially likely to suffer sexual violence within the home, it becomes even more important that marital immunity for rape be completely abolished.

Originally scheduled to end in September, the petition drive has been extended to 30 November.

One reason for this slow response is because marital rape has been given less publicity in the press, as opposed to homosexuality, said professor Chua Beng Huat, a sociology professor in the National University of Singapore (NUS).

He added: “Those who were raped by their spouses are reluctant to go to court for violence or abuse.”

Prof Chua also said that victims of marital rape are also less likely to take on self-identity as marital rape victims, unlike homosexuals who label themselves as LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people).

According to him, gay politics is driven by gays themselves and not by somebody on their behalf, and they constitute a significant number of individuals signing the petition against 337A, while marital rape petition is done on the behalf of the victims who are likely to be a small number.

As the article mentions, we are very much heartened by the positive responses we’ve had to date – it means a great deal to us because we are such a small team, working with so few resources. It’s worth noting, though, that homosexuality has a much greater profile in pop culture and the media in recent years than does marital rape. Movies like Brokeback Mountain and Milk have achieved immense commercial success, but there is no real comparable visibility for marital rape. Moreover, rape victims are more unlikely to identify themselves to anyone at all, even to one another, or gather for social and other purposes on the basis of their experiences of victimisation, as it is often hard to imagine any gain from doing so. This is especially the case in relation to marital rape, where the law does not even recognise the assault as rape to begin with.

In our opinion, these are a few reasons why the petitions are not in quite the same position in terms of pre-existing visibility and organiser and supporter demographics.

Our hope is very much that this campaign will help to open up a public conversation about this issue, and to the extent this is already happening, your responses to us have been far from “lukewarm”. For this, we thank you, the public – and hope you will continue to push the discussion further in every possible arena.

As always, many of you have left messages that are well worth highlighting. Rajashree Rajan writes:

Rape is well-documented and understood to be about power rather than sex itself or pleasure. If we as a society frown upon sexual harassment at work or in a social setting, why should we allow a man to exert such a violent & invasive show of power of a women merely because they share a marriage certificate?

Lim Hsuan’ya adds:

I am very disappointed and utterly upset when I learn about this. How can we call ourself a modern society when such medival law exist.
As a woman myself, I do not feel respected by my country.

And Jeanne Sze Hwee Chai contrasts the message sent by marital immunity for rape against the ideals that society cherishes for marriage:

A union is suppose to be a safe place for two people to grow together. No violence, physical, emotional or sexual should be tolerated. Rape is rape, even if it’s perpetrated by a spouse.

Thank you for your support.

I have heard of friends who have been through many bouts of non-consensual sex with their husband and it was not pleasant for them at all. I believe that this is not to be taken lightly because these victims have nowhere to go for help, especially since the ones harming them are the same ones who have vowed before God to protect them and treat them well. I’ve heard that sex keeps the love alive in marriage, but I don’t think it even works if the man disregards the thoughts and feelings of his wife.

In the week since it was launched, our latest film ad has been watched more than 1,400 times on YouTube. Please continue to spread the word, to help our videos and the campaign reach an even wider audience.

Thank you also to the now more than 2,500 of you who have signed the Petition. As always, many of your eloquent messages deserve to be highlighted here. Some, like this signatory, speak in a voice usually hidden from the world:

I believe in the institution of marriage. Current exceptions for marital is not enough to protect the woman. As someone who was once a victim and had to endure this quietly, I am definitely for the abolition of total rape immunity.

Social worker Hema Gurnani also sheds light on the reality of family violence:

I work in a VWO dealing with children and youth, age ranging from 3.5 – 20 years.
I have been involved in social work for 12.5 years. During my work with children and youths I do interract with many parents, mostly women.
It is indeed very sad to note that there are many women who suffer sexual viloence / abuse in silence because men tend to think that it is their marital right to have sex with his lawful wife with or without consent.
Who is going to stop the abuse or protect the women of our country? I would think women deserve the right to choose, and be free of any sexual abuse.

Gregory Ng offers a clear, heartfelt statement from a male perspective:

this could affect the lives of our mothers, sisters and daughters. protect them like you would protect your own.