SINGAPORE SEX LAWS I

I comment more on Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia than I do on Singapore. That's mostly because, newswise, this place is pretty boring. It's comfy, safe and clean... but also rather dull. But an item in yesterday's paper caught my eye:

SINGAPORE is one of only two countries in Asia yet to sign an international protocol pledging a commitment to reduce child prostitution and child sex tourism.

And - for all of Singapore's harsh penalties for sexual offenses against children on its shores - its citizens are customers abroad for child prostitutes, said an activist.

"Singaporeans are child-sex tourists most notably in Batam (Indonesia)," said Ms Amalee McCoy, the East Asia and Pacific regional officer for international organisation Ecpat (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes).

A total of 119 countries have ratified the 1996 Stockholm Declaration and Agenda for Action.

The protocol called on states to have in place national action plans by the year 2000 to reduce the number of vulnerable children. Signatories commit to pursuing a host of social, legal and policy measures against the commercial exploitation of children. This includes prosecuting citizens who commit such offenses in another country.

The second country that has not ratified the protocol is Timor Leste (better known as East Timor).

The Singapore government, the writer infers, argues that there is no need to have separate legislation banning child sex as local laws are already efficient:

Today understands that Singapore did not attend the Stockholm convention. One view is that authorities do not perceive a serious problem with child trafficking and prostitution here.

With strong statutory rape laws in place which incorporate harsh penalties for under-aged sex, authorities might also feel these deal indirectly with the problem of child prostitution.

Generally, I oppose the creation of new laws when existing ones are sufficient. And, like most international protocols - the child sex protocol is pretty toothless. Ratifying it would be little but a gesture.

On my brief perusal of the protocol, I couldn't see anything in it that Singapore doesn't already do - with the exception of assuming extraterritorial jurisdiction over its citizens who commit child sex offenses while abroad - and that is something that only 24 of the 119 signatories have claimed the right to do.

International treaties tend to be either damaging (like Kyoto) or toothless (like the UN Convention on Human Rights). This one seems to belong to the latter category.

That said, there doesn't seem to be any real downside to ratification. Leaving it unratified just seems to send the wrong signal.