Penalties for molestation, two other sexual offences to be stiffened under proposed changes to Penal Code

• A Bill introduced on Monday (Aug 2) proposes that molestation can attract a jail term of up to three years
• Abusive material involving minors to include close-up images of their private regions when clothed
• A portion expands a law related to the giving of false information to a public servant

SINGAPORE — A Bill was introduced on Monday (Aug 2) to stiffen the penalties for three sexual offences following a review of how some sexual and hurt-related crimes, including voyeurism and distribution of intimate images, are sentenced by the Singapore courts. 

Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam had announced this in March when addressing widespread debate over the sentencing of several university students for sex-related crimes in Parliament, with many saying that the sentences were inadequate.

If passed, it would be the second time the Penal Code — a key part of Singapore’s criminal law framework – was amended over the past three years.

It underwent an overhaul in 2019, when a slew of new laws were enacted to tackle emerging crime trends while existing laws were updated for greater coherence and clarity. 

The latest Bill, which is expected to be debated in Parliament in September, includes further efforts to expand and clarify the scope of certain offences and defences, and modernise the language of certain terms.

Among others, it seeks to clarify the definition of "child abuse material" or “abusive material” to include images of scantily clad minors, or close-up images of the minors’ private parts although they might be covered by clothing.

The Bill also addresses a legal development in March, when the High Court ruled that a provision related to the giving of false information to a public servant does not apply to a man who wasted the police’s time by denying that he knew a suspect. 

The proposed change was for the law to cover cases where the false information is likely to result in an inefficient exercise of police powers, not just improper use, such as when they arrest the wrong person.

Here is an overview of the proposed changes:

INCREASED PENALTIES FOR THREE SEXUAL OFFENCES

The three sexual offences that will see their maximum jail terms increased are:

• Molestation, or outrage of modesty: From two to three years

• Sexual activity in the presence of a minor aged between 14 and 16, or showing a sexual image to the minor: From one to two years

• Sexual activity in the presence of a minor aged between 16 and 18, or showing a sexual image to the minor, if the offender is in an exploitative relationship with the minor: From one to two years

The stiffer penalty for molestation comes as the authorities saw a 24 per cent increase in the number of outrage of modesty cases between 2016 and 2020, with an average of 1,190 cases reported each year.

In a joint press release on Monday, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said that the move would deter more would-be offenders and allow the courts to deal with egregious cases more severely.

The changes to the other two offences — new laws that took effect from Jan 1, 2020 — were to ensure parity with similar offences involving sexual communication with minors of the same age ranges, which already carry a maximum imprisonment term of two years, they added.

EXPANDING AND CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF CERTAIN OFFENCES

• Procurement of sexual activity by deception or false representation 

The Bill broadens the scope of the offence to cover:

• Deceptions that relate to the risk of obtaining a sexually transmitted disease (for example, a person can be prosecuted for lying to the victim that the disease is not transmissible via sexual intercourse)

• A person who induces the victim to consent to being touched sexually by a third person

• Offences relating to voyeurism, child abuse material, abusive material involving minors between 16 and 18

Amendments will clarify:

• That offences related to voyeurism and intimate images or recordings can be made out if the victim’s genital region, not just genitals, is observed or recorded

• That the term “buttocks” used in the wording for offences relating to voyeurism, child abuse material, as well as abusive material of minors aged 16 to 18 include the anal region, so as to avoid ambiguity over the use of these terms

• That “child abuse material” and “abusive material” include images of the minor’s private parts, whether exposed or covered

• That the depiction of the children or minors' private parts must be sexual in nature in addition to being offensive to reasonable persons to ensure that the provision is not unreasonably wide to implicate materials such as diaper advertisements

MAKING THE LAW MORE GENDER-NEUTRAL

• Sexual penetration of a corpse

Presently, this offence prohibits a man from sexually penetrating a corpse, and a person from causing a man to sexually penetrate the corpse without the man’s consent.

The Bill called for the offence to be made gender-neutral, and criminalise other forms of sexual penetration involving corpses, such as using body parts other than a penis.

• Sexual assault involving penetration

Sexual penetration involving a minor under 14 years of age without consent is an aggravated offence that draws a punishment of eight to 20 years in jail and at least 12 strokes of the cane, but the law provides a defence of mistaken consent that currently applies only to men.

The Bill seeks to make the defence gender-neutral, as the offence can be committed by both males and females.

GIVING FALSE INFORMATION TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

Today, the provision under Section 182 of the Penal Code does not apply where a person misleads the police about the identity of a suspect, causing the police to have to put in much more time and effort to find the suspect.

This legal quirk emerged in March this year when the High Court ruled in the appeal of Chua Wen Hao, the subordinate and friend of Lau Sheng Shiun, a former Navy officer who had set fire to towels at a branch of Hotel 81 after being forbidden to join Chua in a room.

Chua had told an investigation officer that he did not know who Lau was, leading the police to spend 21.9 additional man-hours to uncover the suspect’s identity.

Chua was initially convicted of giving false information “with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person” and was sentenced to a 10-day detention behind bars.

After winning his appeal, his charge was reduced to one of furnishing false information to a public servant and he was fined S$2,500 instead.

MHA and MinLaw said that changes are proposed to cover such scenarios as “this is not just a matter of wasting police resources, but also compromising public safety”. “If the suspect remains at large, he could commit more offences, leading to more victims,” they said.

The Bill will also clarify that obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions under Section 186 of the Penal Code could refer to non-physical forms of obstruction.

It also proposes to increase the maximum imprisonment term for this provision from three to six months to ensure parity with a similar offence involving the giving of false information.

MODERNISING THE LANGUAGE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS

The Bill replaces terms such as “wantonly”, “malignantly” and “maliciously” with terms like “rashly” or “intentionally” that are more easily understood and already defined in the Penal Code.

MHA and MinLaw said this is part of their continuing efforts to ensure that the Penal Code is “more accessible to present-day readers”.