“Are we moving towards to punitive society?”, the Workers’ Party chairman, Sylvia Lim, asked the packed room of more than 80 people at the party’s headquarters who were there to attend the WP’s forum on the government’s proposed amendments to the Penal Code. (Here and here)

“We are 2nd in Asia in terms of imprisonment, with about 350 inmates per 100,000 population, after Turkmenistan”, says Ms Lim, citing the World Prison Population report. “We’re in the top 20 or 35% in the world”.

Bringing a balanced view to issues

Kicking off the forum, Ms Lim related how a Singaporean once advised her not to focus too much on the law in her public life as ‘the law may not be something that really interests Singaporeans”. Explaining why it is necessary to bring public awareness to the issues of crime, law and order, Ms Lim emphasized that it is important to bring a balanced view to the issues.

“Very often in singapore when we’re faced with crime or worries about security, you find that the right-wing view takes over”, she says. Thus, in the tradition of the party – as established by its past leaders, Mr David Marshall and Mr JB Jeyaretnam – Ms Lim says the Workers’ Party will always be concerned about criminal justice issues.

Increasing sentences

Moving on to specific proposals in the amendments, Ms Lim voiced several concerns. One of which is the proposal to increase sentences from existing ones. As an example, Ms Lim cited the proposed amendment to up the jail term for assaulting an MP from the current 7 years to 20 years. This drew some gasps from the audience. “Are we over-reacting to particular incidents?”, she asked. For criminal breach of trust, punishment is also proposed to be raised from the current 3 years’ jail to 7 years.

The sentence for being part of an unlawful assembly will, if the proposals are accepted, be raised from the present 6 months to 2 years.

“As we know, people who claim trial get higher sentences than those who plead guilty. Faced with a higher maximum jail term, some will not be willing to take that risk”, explains Ms Lim. Thus, there is concern about people being pressured to plead guilty in order to receive a lighter sentence.

Although “one good thing about the changes is that they have removed mandatory minimum sentences”, Ms Lim questions the proposal to allow judges all 3 options in sentencing – jail, fine and caning – instead of the current practice where judges would choose 2 out of the 3 options. “Why is this necessary?”, she asked.

Although the Ministry of Home Affairs has said that “for imprisonment terms, we have avoided increasing imprisonment terms unnecessarily”, Ms Lim questions if these proposed amendments are then indeed necessary.

“Gender-biased” amendments

Litigation lawyer and columnist for the TODAY newspaper, Thomas Koshy, focused his speech on the sexual aspects of the amendments, including marital rape which is being included under ‘new offences’. Giving specific examples of how the amendments will affect sex crime cases, Mr Koshy says there is too much bias in the protection of women.

Calling the proposed amendments “gender-biased’, he cited the example of sexual intercourse with minors. Although tougher penalties will be introduced for men who engages in sexual intercourse with girls under 16 years of age, it is not an offence for women to engage in sex with boys under 18.

Workers’ Party Youth Wing Exco member, Firuz Khan, touched on the lack of debate and scrutiny of such issues, where the mainstream media tends to take a pro-government stance and there aren’t many NGOs here to push such issues, unlike the United Kingdom where vigorous debate takes place.

The public needs to get involved

“Making love, not making sex”, is what Anthony Yeo, Clinical Director of the Counselling and Care Centre hopes for. Drawing from his experience as a counselor, Mr Yeo touched on the topics of marital rape, emotional blackmail and post-traumatic stress disorder of women who suffered from sexual abuse in marriage – areas in which there are no research done, he regrets.

Mr Yeo also called on all Singaporeans to participate in civil engagement on these issues and not leave it to the opposition parties to voice out. Saying that they are not there as political party members, Mr Yeo emphasized that the public needs to get involved so that the authorities know that ‘we are concerned’.

Gay sex, gay rights

In the question & answer session which followed, a lively exchange between 2 gay lobbyists and the panel of speakers took place. Asked if the Workers’ Party would voice out on the issue of gay sex, Ms Lim explained that the party has discussed the issue extensively but is nonetheless divided. Thus, the WP will not be making any submissions to parliament with regards to gay sex, she says.

A member of the audience cautioned that it is important for the WP to speak up on this as it’s not just a gay rights issue. “If you allow one thing to happen to one minority, it will happen to another minority. You have to be alert because if you keep quiet, then there really will be no voice.”

Another member of the audience asked the panel about their views on proposed amendments regarding new media. Mr Koshy replied that he did not see much in the proposed amendments which referred specifically to new media. “I tried looking for it but nothing grabbed me”, he said.

The forum host, WP treasurer Eric Tan, thanked everyone and called the meeting to an end and invited the guests to a tea reception. Party members, which included candidates in last year’s general elections – WP Vice-chairman Mohammed Rahizan ,Perry Tong, Abdul Salim, Dr Poh Lee Guan and Glenda Han – intermingled with the guests.

—————

Being the first in a series of public forum to celebrate the Workers’ Party 50th anniversary this year, this forum was well-organised. It is also heartening to see so many Singaporeans – from the young to the older ones – making time to attend an opposition party forum.

Apart from the faulty sound system, the Q&A session should have been longer. It is unfortunate that not much time was allocated for this.

But what is important is that perhaps those who attended the forum will leave with a better idea of how the Penal Code may affect their lives, and society in general.

More pictures here.

Sylvia Lim’s speech in full here

Read also Singapore Patriot’s report here.

—————————

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Cost of building HDB flats – finally an answer?

Is the HDB reaping profits of $170,000 per flat? Leong Sze Hian.

中秋灯饰祝福语再闹笑话 网友斥主办方推卸责任

一年一度中秋来临,总会“热闹”起来,特别是众人会特别“期待”牛车水中秋灯饰,会有什么“震惊世人”的创意?🤣 桥南路一带现“奇葩祝福语”,一路上可见一些看似不太适合庆中秋的祝福语,例如“亮亮堂堂”、“国家欢乐”、“星光闪耀”等等。民众都开始疑惑,这些祝福语到底想要表达什么意思? 就连本地作曲家潘耀田都不禁感叹,这些祝福语不伦不类,是否意味着中文水平“无下限的朝着地府方向下降?” 如今“亮亮堂堂”和“国家欢乐”等祝福语已被撤下。此前,牛车水庆中秋筹委会灯饰组负责人李玉凤称,这些装饰是由中国承包商负责灯饰,筹委会也曾要求他们删除部分不当的祝福语,然而,于上周五11日,筹委会才发现未作出任何修改。 除了部分不当的祝福语以外,李玉凤也提及其余较具争议的祝福语,如“星光闪耀”。她解释尽管这看似不恰当,但旨在重现香港复古的氛围,即当地霓虹灯标志的重要特色。 她也谈及桥南路的装饰风格,也是借鉴了香港霓虹灯标志的特色。 与此同时,网友也开始“抓错处”,例如有网友于13日上传了一张祝福语照片,其内容为,写道“月到是秋分外明”,明显出现错误,应将其改为“月到中秋分外明”。 对此,筹委会也回应了该网友的要求,并表示将会严正以待。 当然,这并非是筹委会首次出现纰漏,去年的“找吴刚代嫦娥值班”引发热议,许多网民对于嫦娥的形象过于阳刚而开始批评筹委会,甚至一度成为国人的“打卡”地点。 而今年奇葩祝福语传开后,许多网民也在《联合早报》下方,批评主办方推卸责任,认为是因为筹委会的疏忽才会导致奇葩祝福语出现,属于人为失误,应为此负起责任。 然而,去年引发争议的“吴刚代班嫦娥”的灯饰,今年又如何?根据《联合早报》报道,比起去年,今年的灯饰略显可爱,嫦娥的形象则以Q版的方式出现,但又眼尖的公众发现,嫦娥今年好像“怀孕了”! 有者笑言,是阻断期间吃胖的,还是怀孕?…

Auditor-General: Police reports filed for lapses in financial governance by MND

On Tuesday (16 July), the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) released its annual report,…