Arguably, extra territorial jurisdiction affronts the right of sovereign nations to govern their own affairs. The issue is not whether these nations are able to enforce their own laws but rather whether they see fit to even declare a pursuit or activity so socially objectionable as to designate it as a crime. If their society does not, how is it justifiable for another nation to ‘legislate’ that such activities are not to be performed in that country, albeit applying only to their citizens? In the particularly emotive area of child prostitution, the justification for such laws may be the perceived duty to protect minors overseas from a country’s own citizens. The changes to the Penal Code would hold Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) who engage in what would constitute child prostitution crimes in Singapore liable for the same acts perpetuated overseas, even if they are not in violation of that country’s laws. Such laws are hardly radical and have already been implemented by countries including the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.

The proposed changes have not escaped criticism. While the moral justification for such legislation is unassailable, it is often said that the unenforceable law is bad law, and even at its conception it has been admitted that enforcement of these laws would be extremely challenging. The difficulties in locating victims pale in comparison with getting them to testify against offenders, as prostitution is very different from rape. In the face of its questionable utility, are we enacting a possibly impotent law, having been pressured onto the bandwagon? While international and domestic pressure may have contributed significantly to its implementation, the changes indicate that the law is maturing. While retaining its primary deterrent and punitive function, it now also takes on the role of a more passive articulation of the standard expected by Singaporeans of Singaporeans (and PRs) overseas. In this context, an impotent law may not be redundant.

It would be missing the purpose of these laws to suggest that they are redundant. As suggested above, these laws serve an unconventional purpose. They hold out to the world what Singapore expects of its members. While political rhetoric may achieve this, it is submitted that it is more effectively performed by the law because a society’s laws are fundamentally a manifestation of its shared beliefs and in this case, ethical expectations. The significance of making an activity illegal cannot be understated. Any criticism that these laws are merely political rhetoric cannot stand in this context, for it is much more than that. Ultimately what the new laws would do is unequivocally proclaim that we as a nation deprecate child prostitution as immoral and socially aberrant, so much so that we make it a ‘crime’ even when it is committed outside of Singapore’s jurisdiction. That is the most that any society can do and it is submitted, in this context, that we must do no less.

Kenneth Chua is a first year law student and an associate editor of the Singapore Law Review. – Juris Illuminae Vol. 3 Issue 3 (January 2007)