A Feminist Reading Of The Act
Now, what if someone makes a sexist remark? Can the someone be charged under the Sedition Act?
Singapore has never legally recognized gender equality as a legitimate necessity. It doesn't feel that rooting out gender biases through legislative means is just as serious as maintaining racial and religious harmony in said manner.
Just recite the Singapore pledge silently (if you remember): “…pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion…”
And here's for those who missed reciting it every Monday during the formative SAP school years:
As you can see, there is no mention of gender at all. Apparently, we don’t see gender as a possible divisive and decisive factor enough to word it into importance. Women, please remember that we may have the Women’s Charter, but protection by law in the form of legally affirmed gender equality is a must, and the Women’s Chapter, is still, very, very far from that. And that’s hardly assuring.
I remember it being debated hotly, emerging now and then as a sore point of contention for the then president(s) of AWARE (I think, back when I was very, very young), but as all gender-related issues in Singapore appear to go, was quietly and unceremoniously buried (dumped) when it made no progress: poopoo-ed by the unconcerned higher powers who dismissed wanting to include the gender as a trivial matter, that we already have the Women’s Charter for our legislative rights. If that’s truly the case of a one size fits all and suffices, why bother to have the Religious Harmony Act since we have the Sedition Act in Place and vice versa? Why the double standards?
For better or worse, no one seems to find it odd anymore about the absence of the female figure in our patriarchal legal establishment. It’s like we have been conditioned to believe gender equality in Singapore is really, really here when the truth is probably – Fraility, thy name is Woman. Hell, we are just not important enough as a demographic and also, society/system here is still a conservative and patriarchal one. Carving us into legal print may mean and breed Trouble to Men In Power.
And it’s not just a singular absence – we are entirely wiped out in the statutes. When *Penal Code 377A was in the headlines some years back, my very first thought was: Lesbianism is not a crime! Not fair! We are being sexually discriminated!
Fine, you may want to see this as empowering women sexually, that we somehow manage to give the sexual slip through clutches of the law. But I still prefer to believe that this signifies the traditionally stratified role our patriarchal society has for women. We stay in our domains. We are acknowledged to be straight and would not stray to some strange, destabilising, sexual role, especially. In an exaggerated way, we need our men and their penises, and we would never *cross the heart and hope to die*, oh God forbid, have sex with our own sex. And so, we are sadly typecast as the good, decent girl-next-door. Not the slut, not the whore, not the queer. How safe, virtuous and boring.
(*Outrages on decency.377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.)
But I digress too much. Returning to my earlier questions: What if someone makes a sexist remark? Can the someone be charged under the Sedition Act?
Probably yes. We, women, can be a “class”.
From SEDITION ACT (CHAPTER 290)
Seditious tendency.
3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
I highly doubt we will crack down on anyone who made sexist (or misogynistic, if you will) remarks this heavily though.
Singapore has never legally recognized gender equality as a legitimate necessity. It doesn't feel that rooting out gender biases through legislative means is just as serious as maintaining racial and religious harmony in said manner.
Just recite the Singapore pledge silently (if you remember): “…pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion…”
And here's for those who missed reciting it every Monday during the formative SAP school years:
As you can see, there is no mention of gender at all. Apparently, we don’t see gender as a possible divisive and decisive factor enough to word it into importance. Women, please remember that we may have the Women’s Charter, but protection by law in the form of legally affirmed gender equality is a must, and the Women’s Chapter, is still, very, very far from that. And that’s hardly assuring.
I remember it being debated hotly, emerging now and then as a sore point of contention for the then president(s) of AWARE (I think, back when I was very, very young), but as all gender-related issues in Singapore appear to go, was quietly and unceremoniously buried (dumped) when it made no progress: poopoo-ed by the unconcerned higher powers who dismissed wanting to include the gender as a trivial matter, that we already have the Women’s Charter for our legislative rights. If that’s truly the case of a one size fits all and suffices, why bother to have the Religious Harmony Act since we have the Sedition Act in Place and vice versa? Why the double standards?
For better or worse, no one seems to find it odd anymore about the absence of the female figure in our patriarchal legal establishment. It’s like we have been conditioned to believe gender equality in Singapore is really, really here when the truth is probably – Fraility, thy name is Woman. Hell, we are just not important enough as a demographic and also, society/system here is still a conservative and patriarchal one. Carving us into legal print may mean and breed Trouble to Men In Power.
And it’s not just a singular absence – we are entirely wiped out in the statutes. When *Penal Code 377A was in the headlines some years back, my very first thought was: Lesbianism is not a crime! Not fair! We are being sexually discriminated!
Fine, you may want to see this as empowering women sexually, that we somehow manage to give the sexual slip through clutches of the law. But I still prefer to believe that this signifies the traditionally stratified role our patriarchal society has for women. We stay in our domains. We are acknowledged to be straight and would not stray to some strange, destabilising, sexual role, especially. In an exaggerated way, we need our men and their penises, and we would never *cross the heart and hope to die*, oh God forbid, have sex with our own sex. And so, we are sadly typecast as the good, decent girl-next-door. Not the slut, not the whore, not the queer. How safe, virtuous and boring.
(*Outrages on decency.377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.)
But I digress too much. Returning to my earlier questions: What if someone makes a sexist remark? Can the someone be charged under the Sedition Act?
Probably yes. We, women, can be a “class”.
From SEDITION ACT (CHAPTER 290)
Seditious tendency.
3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
I highly doubt we will crack down on anyone who made sexist (or misogynistic, if you will) remarks this heavily though.
2 Comments:
No fair! Lesbians should be hauled off to jail too!
*note to random blog-readers: I don't really mean that.*
zuco: Thanks for sharing. But Singapore can always review the penal code, like what they are purportedly doing with the Sedition Act!
It bugs me terribly that the female gender is rendered the invisible entity in law and pledge.
"it is where you put the penis that counts" - ahhh that's where linguistic feminism comes into play - we must reclaim language that tilts in favour of patriarchy. For example, we must rename penetration as enclosure such that the power of the sexual act lies with the woman :)
Post a Comment
<< Home