On 8 May 2008, the Straits Times reported that Chan Mun Chiong was charged with committing an act of gross indecency, i.e. under Section 377A of the Penal Code.
His offence, to which he apparently intends to plead guilty, was to have oral sex with a 16-year-old boy when he knew he was HIV-positive. For that, Chan was also charged under the Infectious Diseases Act for endangering the health and the life of his partner.
However,
I agree that Chan deserves to be charged under the Infectious Diseases Act, but not under Section 377A, because that is a grossly unfair and discriminatory law. Also, I wonder, how can his full name be published in the national newspaper? The case is not even closed yet! What sort of treatment is this -- guilty until proven innocent? Oh wait, it's actually, guilty even though prisoner hasn't pleaded anything and case is simply awaiting sentence.
I am not sure but I thought that generally, even charged criminals in most cases have some sort of right to privacy, so much so that some groups are pressing their government to release names of 'high-risk' criminals such as pedophiles to the public. Of course the Singapore government, and the press apparently, believe in the 'name-and-shame' tactic.
However, even if there are no explicit laws prohibiting the release of the criminal's name, what about rights to the privacy of the victim? There are definitely laws protecting the victims, or there should be, so won't naming Chan put the identity of his victim at risk? Suddenly, all teenage boys he has been seen with or know are not only at risk for being outed, not only as a gay, but a victim and a potential HIV carrier as well, even if they are not the real victim.
But wait. The Singapore government, police and press apparently don't care about that, do they?
The Prime Minister, last October 23rd, said in Parliament that the authorities would not “proactively enforce Section 377A.” In effect, he was assuring gay citizens that they could consider Section 377A as no threat and not fear discriminatory treatment under the law.
I agree that Chan deserves to be charged under the Infectious Diseases Act, but not under Section 377A, because that is a grossly unfair and discriminatory law. Also, I wonder, how can his full name be published in the national newspaper? The case is not even closed yet! What sort of treatment is this -- guilty until proven innocent? Oh wait, it's actually, guilty even though prisoner hasn't pleaded anything and case is simply awaiting sentence.
I am not sure but I thought that generally, even charged criminals in most cases have some sort of right to privacy, so much so that some groups are pressing their government to release names of 'high-risk' criminals such as pedophiles to the public. Of course the Singapore government, and the press apparently, believe in the 'name-and-shame' tactic.
Many states have laws to protect the confidentiality of victims of crime. Most of these laws relate to specific groups of victims: sexual assault victims, domestic violence victims, abused or neglected elderly or disabled adults, missing persons, hate crime victims, and child victims.--The National Center for Victims of Crime
However, even if there are no explicit laws prohibiting the release of the criminal's name, what about rights to the privacy of the victim? There are definitely laws protecting the victims, or there should be, so won't naming Chan put the identity of his victim at risk? Suddenly, all teenage boys he has been seen with or know are not only at risk for being outed, not only as a gay, but a victim and a potential HIV carrier as well, even if they are not the real victim.
But wait. The Singapore government, police and press apparently don't care about that, do they?
No comments:
Post a Comment