Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Abstracts of essays; news; announcements; short takes.
About Me
- Yawning Bread Sampler
- This blog carries summary abstracts of Yawning Bread essays, with space for comments.
Here too are other tidbits that are too short for the main Yawning Bread site.
To email me, go to the main site.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(136)
-
▼
November
(13)
- Stem cell research in Singapore
- Hate speech law badly drafted
- What our non-crusading media avoids
- Our disgraceful trinity: littering, inconsideratio...
- The niqab and the freedom of religion
- All work, little pay
- Bad rep costs
- But if you can't rape your wife, who can you rape?
- Waylaid by rubbish
- Pseudo repeal under cover of smoke?
- An echoless ravine
- Quicksand conservatism
- A bit of Kenya in Singapore
-
▼
November
(13)
Posts
8 comments:
That is the whole idea.
This prevents married women from filing affidavits of rape, sodomy, sexual abuse against their husbands. The Singapore law is going backwards to Confucianist law.
Now what if a married woman has photo evidence as exhibits of herself, showing that she was sexually abused by her husband? What will the Singapore Court find in favor for the woman?
Just like the law with a man and woman of consenting age, having anal sex, n gays not, it is again, the same discrimination that the singapore legal system has craftly worked out. Straight n simple, but they do not see the grey areas.
Women n gays don't count in Asia.
This law is 'anti' women.
How about this scenerio?
The man in the marriage gets sexually abused by his wife. Can he file an affidavit of sexual abuse, that his wife beat him up?
The wife then counters in her affidavit 'that her husband is into S n M.'
Which side will the Singapore court decide in favor for?
You see, the law does not cover these grey areas.
There are tons of scenerios that can happen, and simplifying the matrimonial law will not resolve many problems.
the Singapore Judicial system thinks that by SIMPLIFYING THE SINGAPORE LAW - the resolution in court decisions is going to easy.
In fact, it might very well work against them in the long term.
2+2 does not always - 4?
I am convinced that passing these laws, Singapore continues in its quest to tighten the legal control over the rights of women n gays.
Hmm... "every person should have full sovereignty over his body".
YB made this sweeping statement over the topic of rape. Not to redirect the discussion...
My question to all readers is:
The SG govt has laws over your bodies to comply compliance with NS issues. Does this mean that male do not have full sovereignty over their own bodies?
What constitutes freedom and the concept of an individual? By compelling all males to enter NS at age 18 (+/-) without individual choice, and another x years of reservist-ism, do we have full sovereignty over our own bodies?
I guess, my beef is that there was never a choice to 'defend my country'. Draconian draft laws. Such odd things different societies come up with.
Just food for thought. Its relevant to the rape topic insofar as asking the root question of "what am I in this society to be"
E.o.M.
Singapore's Penal Code, as in all manner of laws passed in this one-party State, are written by a closed group of faceless techocrats, who comes under the dictation of one man, and faces absolutely no dissent from pressure groups or civil society. In that void, you only get a nation of whingers, not doers. What else does one expect?
Singaporeans HAVE NO FREEDOM.
No freedom for political speech n suggestions, no freedom for sex?, and as singaporeans continue into the the 21Century, one will see more tight restrictions on news, on internet, on information.
We will be told what, how, whom to do it with.
I once spoke to a friend, about the suffocating laws that are closing in on all Singaporeans.
His reply: "Well, if u don't like they way Singapore is run...leave the country."
That is easier said than done.
For starters, to leave the country, to re-locate, singaporeans will have to set aside funds for that.
By bringing in boatloads of FTs to resolve the cheap labour, many of these FTs have been clever to see the loopholes, that the Singapore Govt has not covered up. For them, Singapore is a great launching-pad for them to take off to other countries.
What is going to happen to Singapore?
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-10-23-gehry-singapore-casino_x.htm?POE=TRVISVA
Gehry leads!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3590184.stm
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/143206/1/.html -CNA/Lee
When the casinos come, be prepared for the side industries that will always come with them. And since the Singapore Govt seems to have an answer to everything, there maybe forces that even they are not able to control.
i agree that the women most likely to suffer marital rape would be the less empowered once who wouldn't be able to seek "injunction" or whatever legal mambo jumbo before actually sueing the husband.
Even though I'm female, i think that marital immunity is relatively acceptable BUT what about women who are abused?! Shouldn't one of the exceptions to marital immunity be abuse?! Rather than "complaints" of abuse? And it's known that most abused women do not report their husbands in the first place!
to "November"- The woman must file with her lawyer a temporary protection order, n this has to be served upon her husband. The woman has to show proof that her life is at stake, often times, a woman that is beaten up, black n blue, may lodge a complaint with the Singapore police, tho' I do not know how effective it really is?
The home where the husband n wife lives is called the matrimonial home, and without a temporary protection order,( a judge can award that,) is only when the woman can safely return back to her matrimonial home, and her husband moves out. it is a time-consuming process, as the woman who has kids, may have to work, or a woman with no family, may not have a place to hide out?
Now with this 'husband rape law'...it is going to be tough, as the onus of proof will always be on the side on the woman.
My suggestion? live with a guy, and wait...
No man should ever rape any woman, wife or not. This law is setting the Singapore woman back to 16th C China.
"..just because you agree to have sex with someone today, doesn’t mean you want to or agree to the next. if both parties consent, then go ahead; but if one party doesn’t give consent, then respect that decision and go wank off by yourself. any supposed implied consent is just a false construction of reality."
to 14 November, 2006 02:17- great response. But there are some nasty spouses out there, that get a kick out of beating up their partners.That is one of the grey areas. The onus of proof?
Post a Comment