“Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman – 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 of up to one year, or with a fine, or with both”. – section 509 of Chapter XXII: Criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance, as stated in the Singapore Penal Code.
I know I said quick read - sorry about that. It wasn't quite a quick read for me either. All I think is, wah. I don’t know how lawyers do it, but words like these muddle me completely.
But I must tell you about a recent experience which first of all, made me look up this para on the Internet.
I was at an electronics store at Paya Lebar a couple of weeks ago, when a member of the staff took pictures of me in a voyeuristic fashion. My first reaction? A sense of embarrassment. My second was a sense of shame. I wanted to get away as fast as I could. I couldn't really explain why without delving into past histories. I explained to my bf Daryl that a man was busy taking pictures of my lower body. But if any of you know Daryl, you would know that we wouldn't be walking out without some sort of a commotion. The man was confronted, but there was no admission made. A couple of days later Daryl and I made our way down to the police station to make a statement.
What concerned me was this: the police weren't quite sure what should be done. Was my underwear exposed? the NSF policeman asked. (I'd previously mentioned my skirt had been blown up by a fan situated on the floor, and for all I know the man must have been waiting to capture another, related moment). Er, I said, I guess so. Are you sure it was exposed? he asked again. I recall feeling like I was on a very short fuse that had just about reached its end. YES IT WAS EXPOSED. Sigh.
I was then told that investigations could not proceed without a magistrate's order. Apparently, it doesn't constitute the sort of offence that would be investigated without direction from a judge. One harrowing experience at the courts later, I had the order to proceed. It might be a little inappropriate here to discuss the experience at the courts, for one reason that I'd possibly bore you, and for another, I think I would have to first read up on just what contempt of courts really means.
At Daryl's insistence, the case was resolved. I'm very thankful for his consistent reminders that my modesty and privacy meant something; that I hadn't done anything wrong and so should not feel a sense of shame, or else give into it; and that some sense of justice should come out of it.
I think my stomach was in a twist the entire day. But again, because of that support I had (also a million, billion and otherwise uncountable thanks to my friend S, currently with a law firm and who possesses frightening powers of cross-examination), I remember thinking that, alright then, bloody hell, I'm not going to wait for the police to begin an investigation. I should go ahead and have a look at the company's CCTV, point out the bit where he did the deed, and ask him square – with S’s help – if he would like to make a confession.
The man did confess, after having vainly tried to explain that really, he had been studiously attempting a picture of the ceiling. He was suspended for two weeks. A letter of apology was also sent to me. As much as it is now over, I hold out a distant hope that he should turn from his ways, and realise that women shouldn't be treated like meat at a market.
So after this very long story, the points I wish to make are as such:
- I think we need to know where this context figures in the policing of our society. According to an officer I spoke with, outrage of modesty (molest and beyond) is treated with the requisite urgency. It is otherwise for what he classified as an "insult of modesty" - the definition of which you'll see doesn't quite fit squarely with what he claimed it to be. But urgency is not my concern as such - my question is, why does it seem to me like absolutely nothing is done about it in the first place? As a case in point, you may at your own choosing surf a couple of local websites. Search the category entitled "candid", and see how many convent girls have their pictures taken with what I can only assume to be an absence of permission, and put up for a million men to see, to rate and to grade. Likewise so for women in MRTs, in the lifts, standing in a bookshop. The physical contexts span a number of locations, but the intent is the same: to capture, to expose, to get aroused over and in the process, to degrade a woman who gave no permission or consent for her picture to be used, and to be used in such a fashion. And no-one is caught, for as it seems, they are not recognised as having committed an offence.
2. We also need to know: how does our system of policing - and on a wider level, our system of law - respond to the vagaries of exposed modesties on the internet? Is this a crime? Does it count, and if it does, why is nothing much done about it? The police have explained that my case is classifiable as an insult to modesty. The extract of the chapter as outlined above, however, would perhaps apply more to the victim of a flasher than anybody else. And yet, my situation would not be classified as the other, closest alternative: an outrage to modesty. This is because only a case that displays actions as outlined in s. 354. of Chapter XVI: Offences affecting the human body (you may view this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Code_(Singapore)#Criminal_force_and_assault), would really be classified as such, for it must involve criminal force or physical assault. So I ask: where does this particular crime (or what I deem to be a crime) lie? Is it definable as an offence? And if it were, why is this definition not clear to women like you and I? You may head straight to the police after an arrest. And as for rape, it is thankfully accepted knowledge that the woman has suffered a crime. But I ask – what about women in the situation as outlined above?
3. And lastly, education. First off, we need to ask: do women know their rights? I have often wondered why knowledge of the Penal Code, human rights and, naturally, women's rights, are not explored in the schools. Or at the community centres, where you may find middle aged ladies wondering how they should respond to an abusive husband. Or in this instance, for the convent school girl who sees a man taking a voyeuristic picture up her uniformed skirt, and does not know how to act.
Do not act as I did, which was a. to feel shame and embarrassment, and b. to walk away. Walk towards the person who attempts to defile you, insult you and degrade you (unless of course, he is on the physical attack). Challenge what he obviously deems to be either perfectly acceptable, and/or perfectly stimulating, and demand that your pictures be deleted, and that task be done before you. If it is refused, and if the person becomes aggressive, go to the police. There is, however, a great big But.
You will, as in my experience, be presented with the idea that they don't know what to do. Then you'll be led to the subordinate courts, where you'll go before a magistrate, re-tell an incident which has been emotionally traumatising and invasive, and wait and hope that your case will be heard and the police will be allowed to act. If that doesn't happen, then I'm sorry.
But do not keep silent, as I once did. Please use your voice to defend, to challenge and to declare that your rights and the law which seeks to protect them must be clearly defined. I will make every effort - as I hope you do - to ask that authorities pay attention to the ongoing outrage of women's and young girls' modesties that happens on the Internet every day, with every upload and with every click to view.
