| Submit your comments on this article |
| No Saki Saki Over Here (For Now...) |
| 2004-02-18 |
| A Singapore judge reduced the sentence of a policeman charged with receiving oral sex after his case provoked a storm of protest, but he told the court that such a sex act did not conform to Asian values. Police coast guard sergeant Annis Abdullah’s sentence was halved to a year in jail after the 27-year-old received consensual oral sex from a teenage girl in April. "In the Asian culture, certain offences are still not talked about though in some cultures you can go sucking away, and some important people had gotten away with it," 77-year-old Chief Justice Yong Pung How was quoted by state media as telling the court at Tuesday’s sentencing. The man’s case sparked a rare public outcry against a notorious local law that says "whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals can be fined and jailed up to 10 years, or even for life." Letters defending Abdullah filled newspapers after media reported the girl’s age as 16, above the legal age of consent. After days of furious correspondence in the press deriding the oral sex ban as antiquated and out of step, the government announced that her age at the time of the incident was 15. Still, Singaporeans, known for quietly acquiescing to tough laws, appeared shocked such a ban even existed, and the government announced last month it may decriminalize oral sex between men and women following a review of the Penal Code. |
| Posted by:Lil Dhimmi |
| #8 Would you say this is a heads-up. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-19 9:44:53 AM |
| #7 So much to learn. So little time. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-2-18 11:50:55 PM |
| #6 Thx! I am constantly amazed by the opportunities the internet & blogosphere offer. Looking back 20+ years, it was simple: if Walter Crankcase, Howard K Smith, Huntley / Brinkley, or the local paper didn't say it, not only did it not happen, but what did happen happened precisely how and why they said it did. Boggles. And in those parts of the world where these awesome sources are anything less than commonplace (includes much of the US), it explains much. Thx, again! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-18 8:18:31 PM |
| #5 .com I believe the statute is vaguely worded along the lines of 'un-natural sex acts'. This has then been interpreted by judges. There was a much talked about (at least by expats who thought it was hilarious) case 5 or 6 years ago where the judge ruled that oral sex as a part of foreplay leading to intercourse was not 'un-natural', and hence not illegal. Given that Singapore has a UK based system of case law, that is now the legal precedent. Hence my earlier statement. Of course every press report I have read on the subject fails to mention this and anyone not familiar with the history of the subject would assume all oral sex is illegal, which is not the case. An interesting illustration of how blogs can be more reliable than the mainstream press. regards |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-2-18 7:19:35 PM |
| #4 phil_b - I know I'm asking for the moon, but can you point to an online source for the penal code reference? I would just love to see the legalistic jargon in context. That could be a major hoot! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-18 6:59:52 PM |
| #3 In the interests of accuracy I need to point out that in Singapore oral sex as part of foreplay leading to intercourse is not illegal. Oral sex is illegal only when it does not lead to intercourse. So remember! When in Singapore, No sucking without F**king! |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-2-18 6:53:43 PM |
| #2 He said Penal Code. Huh huh. |
| Posted by: Beavis 2004-2-18 6:04:42 PM |
| #1 Police coast guard sergeant Annis Abdullah’s sentence was halved to a year in jail after the 27-year-old received consensual oral sex from a teenage girl in April. Isn't Anus Abdullah a Saudi prince or something? |
| Posted by: Lil Dhimmi 2004-2-18 5:30:18 PM |