Signatories Header
Be Sociable, Share!
177
maria ronald03 Jul 2009 10:29
176
Koh Jie Kai03 Jul 2009 10:17
Because bodily integrity is of fundamental importance.
175
Kai03 Jul 2009 09:41
174
Divya Bendre03 Jul 2009 09:29
173
Anonymous03 Jul 2009 09:24
172
Amanda Chong03 Jul 2009 07:41
171
Shawn Ban03 Jul 2009 07:16
170
Siegfried Van Duffel03 Jul 2009 03:55
169
Anonymous03 Jul 2009 02:49
Nil
168
Sze Yao03 Jul 2009 00:36
If you don't have their consent, you're not good enough. (And no, monthly allowance does not equate to "payment".)
167
Anonymous03 Jul 2009 00:08
Section 376A(5) provides (subject to the same limitations) that this offence will not be committed where a man uses his penis to penetrate a girl under the age of 16, if the perpetrator and victim are married to each other. << I don't even think it's possible for the victim to be married under 16 years of age.

But either way, all the best!
166
Danielle Zheng02 Jul 2009 23:52
165
Caleb Yong02 Jul 2009 23:36
164
Ong Po Qin02 Jul 2009 23:36
163
Anonymous02 Jul 2009 23:31
Rape is rape, under any circumstances. Marriage is not a justification.
162
Tania De Rozario02 Jul 2009 23:28
If upholding this law is not ridiculous and archaic at best, and misogynist, inhumane and disgusting at worst, I don't know what is. REPEAL. NOW.
161
virginia02 Jul 2009 23:25
160
Paul Staes02 Jul 2009 23:24
Personally I believe that, from an ethical viewpoint, violence (sexual or other) against one's own spouse is actually more reprehensible than against a 3rd party because of the promised bond of love and care that exists between spouses. While it may not be practical to enforce this view in criminal law, it does not make sense that criminal law would hold exactly the opposite view, allowing for "sexual violence" to be less reprehensible if it occurs
between spouses.
159
Anonymous02 Jul 2009 22:56
158
Andrew Loh02 Jul 2009 22:34
I agree fully that rape in any form, under any guise, should and must be outlawed.