SINGAPORE — The State has pushed the obligation to regulate prostitution onto “unsuspecting individual consumers”, through laws that catch not only sex predators but also individuals who have inadvertently paid for sex with someone under 18 “through no fault of their own”.

This was the personal view put forth by two lawyers in an article published in the latest issue of the Law Gazette on the Republic’s regulation of commercial sex, in the wake of high-profile cases of commercial sex with a minor in the past year.

The article, Sex, Money, Lies and Punishment, was penned by Ms A Sangeetha of Harry Elias Partnership and Mr Eoin O Muimhneachain of the Law Society’s Pro Bono Services Office.

Singapore’s legal framework, “in trying to achieve the important objective of protecting children, has instead focused on deterring legitimate consumers from participating in the sex industry at all in order to avoid the hard work and responsibility inherent in properly regulating it”, they argued in the Law Society publication.

There is no defence available to an accused for having commercial sex with a minor under the law, but a mitigating factor in some recent cases that have come before the courts was whether the accused took steps to verify the age of the sex worker.

Noting that customers have no statutory powers to demand proof of age, the authors argued that, to say a customer has the power to simply refuse the services of a sex worker who cannot produce identification fails to acknowledge that such a refusal “does nothing to protect underage sex workers from being exploited by actual paedophiles”. It also failed to acknowledge the fact that refusal to show identification is common practice.

It is not an offence for someone to lie about being over 18 years old before providing sexual services — a contrast to how a cigarette merchant is not held liable when someone underage produces a forged identification card to buy cigarettes and how those below 18 who purchase or possess cigarettes can be fined up to S$300, the authors wrote.

There is a paradox in permitting prostitution but punishing those who, despite their best efforts to ensure otherwise, engage the sexual services of someone below 18. The paradox can be resolved only by either criminalising prostitution, or fully regulating the profession where all sex workers are licensed by a statutory board responsible for — among other things — ensuring every licensee is of legal age, they argued.

Other lawyers TODAY spoke to, however, felt that the laws’ objectives are clear in protecting women and children and deterring human trafficking. Present laws may not be “entirely satisfactory” but are probably the best balance, neither criminalising nor creating the perception of encouraging prostitution, said Mr Shashi Nathan. Either scenario would create problems, he said.

Even underage women who willingly engage in commercial sex are victims to some extent, said Mr Choo Zheng Xi. “I’m a bit wary of comparing why people prostitute themselves when they’re underage, to why people might misdeclare their age when buying cigarettes and alcohol. (The former) is a complex sociological problem,” he said.

Mr Josephus Tan and Mr Bernard Doray said it is up to customers to walk away to avoid any risk of engaging in paid underage sex. Those who “step into the lion’s den” should know they are taking the risk, said Mr Doray. “Best to stay away, or it must be physically clear to you this person is an adult,” he said.