… to be a woman.
Singapore, 12 April 2016
Remember this date guys. Let it sink in.
Now, let it be remembered that on this very day, April, 2016, two pieces of news regarding women in Singapore went viral.
NEWS 1:
Unwed Mothers (like, finally) get 16 weeks of Maternity Leave; the same as wedded mothers.
NEWS 2:
A Woman was cleared of six charges of sexual penetration of a minor, on the basis that “only a man can be guilty of the offences”.
whoahuhwhuuuuticanteven…
remind me again…
yup.
Two separate news. one good, one bad, both absurd.
NEWS 1:
Unwed Mothers get 16 weeks of Maternity Leave…
… and not only that… their children will also be given $$$ through a Child Development Account, which helps pay for childcare and healthcare needs.
These extensions bring unwed mothers up to speed with some of the benefits married parents enjoy.
Before this, unwed mothers are only entitled to eight weeks of paid maternity leave and their children do not qualify for Child Development Accounts, they do not get the Baby Bonus cash gift nor parenthood tax rebates, and have to wait until they are 35 years old to buy a Housing Board flat under the singles scheme. Source
So yes, it’s a big “yay”, or. as some say…
***
Now, let’s dive a little deeper into this beautiful day.
NEWS 2:
A Woman was cleared of six charges of sexual penetration of a minor, on the basis that “only a man can be guilty of the offences”.
Senior Judge Kan Ting Chiu made the unprecedented decision in the unusual case of Zunika Ahmad
Get this… Zunika Ahmad is a 39-year-old who is biologically female but has lived as man since she was a teen and had even “married” two women using the bogus identity of an Indonesian man.
The accused pleaded guilty last December to six counts of sexual penetration and one count of child exploitation under the Children and Young Persons Act for sexually abusing an underaged girl who lived in the neighbourhood.
Zunika had admitted penetrating the girl, who was between 13 and 14 years, with external aids…
But Justice Kan concluded that the provision cannot cover women as offenders.
The provision states that “any person (A) who sexually penetrates, with a part of A’s body (other than A’s penis) or anything else”, a person under the age of 16 is guilty of an offence.
Justice Kan said that A cannot be a woman. Source
I mean, even the Facebook comments that followed, made more sense than the ruling.
The term #genderequality is being brandished in the comments as you can see – and isn’t this case in the very spirit of being against it? Isn’t it totally #genderinequality if a sexual predator is penalized (or should we say penis-lized hiak hiak.) whether with appendage or not? Exactly what message does such a ruling send???!!!!
Deploying an archaic law, holding on to its literal translation, and factoring in your half-past-six interpretation without consideration of the true spirit of the point of law and its purpose…
that’s disappointing, judge.
Someday when we look back on this day, I’d say
’twas the the day we moved
one step forwards, but two steps back.
—
Got a bone to pick with this article…? >> speak to the writer
1 Comment