Under S'pore's laws, one cannot be charged for insulting the modesty of a man. Here's why.

Insult of modesty law apply only to women victims.

Tanya Ong | Chan Cheow Pong | December 30, 2017, 02:56 PM

Laws in Singapore are not necessarily gender neutral.

It's surprising but it's true. In Singapore, men cannot have their modesty insulted.

This point came to light in an appeal case reported by The Straits Times on Dec 30, 2017.

Apparently, under Singapore's law, the offence of "insulting modesty'' applies only to women victims. Men are not protected by the specific section of the law which differentiates the two sexes.

Okay, we know this sound strange, especially in a country as modern as Singapore.

Why are we stuck with such archaic laws that value a man's modesty differently from a woman?

Before we get to that, it's good to recap the facts of the case.

Case Summary

27-year-old Malaysian sales executive Teo Han Jern had used his mobile phone to secretly capture videos and photos of 33 men in public toilets - some of them engaging in sexual acts and others defecating.

He was caught on Sept 9 last year, when he tried to film a man by placing his phone over the toilet cubicle partition.

According to ST, Teo pleaded guilty to:

  • Five counts of making obscene films, for which he was jailed for four weeks each
  • Four counts of being a public nuisance for the pictures he took ($1,000 fine each)
  • One count of having an obscene film in his possession (two weeks in jail).

He would have to serve in total 10 weeks in jail as three of the jail terms for making obscene films were to run concurrently.

The Public Prosecutor appealed and argued for six-month jail term as this would have been the benchmark if the victims had been women.

The appeal was rejected.

[related_story]

Two different sections of the Penal Code

Section 509: Insulting of modesty, only for women victims

District Judge Kenneth Yap said that Parliament had adopted the relevant section on "insulting modesty" from the Indian Penal Code of 1860 in its original form, which referred specifically to women.

It was in this context that he rejected the appeal. He said:

"There is no evidence that the omission to protect males under Section 509 of the Penal Code was accidental or unintentional."

Yap was referring to a specific section in the Penal Code that accounts for intrusion of privacy and violation with sexual intent, but it is limited to women victims.

Section 509 states:

"Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

Given that Teo targeted men, he could not be charged under Section 509.

Section 345: Outrage of modesty, gender neutral, but involves assault 

Yap had noted that the disparity in the treatment of men was intentional as there is a separate Penal Code provision on outrage of modesty which applies to both men and women.

He was referring to Section 345 of the Penal Code that deals with "assault or use of criminal force to a person with intent to outrage modesty." This applies to victims of any gender, and covers cases of molest and groping.

As Teo did not assault nor touch his victims, he could not be charged under Section 345.

Charged under the Films Act 

Hamstrung by what the law says, the prosecution, in the words of Yap, "had taken the practical view that charges, such as under the Films Act, could be used to plug the gap".

Hence, Teo was charged for making and possessing obscene films, as well as for being a public nuisance under the Films Act instead.

This was somewhat a creative approach on the part of the prosecution but the the Films Act was meant to protect society from the corrupting influence of obscene films, not to deal with cases of voyeurism and intrusion of privacy.

Ultimately, Teo received a lighter sentence than if he had been charged under Section 509.

A matter for Parliament, not the courts

Clearly, there are differentiated approaches toward men and women under Singapore's laws.

Yap suggested that this could be due to the different way society regards the two sexes.

For instance, he pointed out that male urinals and changing rooms "are typically more 'open concept' than their female equivalents would," and that it "speak[s] volumes of a differentiated approach to modesty."

Nevertheless, this case has opened up important questions regarding whether or not a man have his modesty insulted in the same way as that of a woman, and if the law protects both men and women equally.

But as Yap says:

"The fundamental question is whether a man is capable of having his modesty insulted in the same way as that of a woman - and Singapore's laws make a deliberate difference between the sexes when it come to the outrage and insult of modesty. While some may argue that everyone's privacy, regardless of gender, should be equally protected, this debate is for Parliament, not the courts."

Here are some unrelated articles you should check out next:

My Mom went on a day out with a film camera. Here’s how she views the world

Why you should reignite that kampong spirit with your neighbours

Top photo from Getty Images.