Together with some others interested in the same issue, I have been trying to keep a record of press reports of prosecutions related to gay sex. One thing I have noticed is that police entrapment of gay cruising has not been reported for at least 12 years, probably 16.
Until now. A recent report in the New Paper thus comes as a serious break in the pattern. A Malaysian was entrapped by a constable at a well-frequented cruising ground off busy Victoria Street.
The New Paper (Singapore) reported on 11 June 2010:
Man gropes cop in cemetery
By Elysa Chen
On May 4, the police conducted an anti-vice operation at the old cemetery along Jalan Kubor, an area known for vice.
The police declined to to give details of the vice activities.
A plainclothes policeman was standing alone in a poorly lit spot when he was approached by Jagadiswaran Krisnan, 32, a coffee house supervisor, at about 10.40pm.
Jagadiswaran struck up a conversation with the undercover cop.
Two other police officers were stationed a short distance away, ready to provide help.
While talking to the officer, Jagadiswaran, a Malaysian, moved closer to him. He told the officer that he was there “to have fun”.
Then, he suddenly raised his hand and stroked the officer’s chest and private parts.
That was when the undercover cop identified himself and, with the help of his colleagues, arrested the man.
Jagadiswaran was charged with behaving in an indecent manner in a public place. He was fined $1,000 on Tuesday.
Entrapment is a very problematic tactic in law enforcement; this is true whether we’re referring to drugs, espionage or sex. It always begs the question of whether the crime would have been committed if the undercover officer was not there in the first place. Entrapment generally starts from potentiality and converts it to reality, triggering an actus reus (action) when only the mens reus (intention) might have existed.
For example, we advise people to be careful and not flash jewelry when walking around areas with poverty, high unemployment or crime. Why do we feel such advice is pertinent? Because we can see the role that temptation plays in precipitating crime. When someone is foolish enough to walk about, dazzling others with bling-bling and then get robbed, many of us would ascribe partial responsibility to the person advertising the potential loot.
How different is this from an entrapment operation? What is the police’s responsibility in creating the crime?
More troubling is the possibility, mentioned in Alan Shadrake’s book, Once a Jolly Hangman, that undercover officers posing as narcotics buyers are known to prompt their sellers to supply larger and larger amounts of heroin till it gets above 15 grams, triggering the mandatory death penalty when caught. The book cites an unnamed insider source for this disclosure.
... that so angered the former CNB officer who assisted in some of my enquiries. ‘Encouraging the less fortunate to commit more serious crimes that result in them being hanged or jailed for impossibly long terms really appalled me’, he said...
– Once a Jolly Hangman, page 132
What this means is that even if we argue in certain cases that actus reus would have occurred without entrapment, it still begs the question of degree.
Giving non-verbal consent: The “language” of cruising grounds
The individual was quite right to assume that the officer had given consent, at least to the initial approach. This consent is based on the “language” of cruising grounds.
The cruising ground in question is a thickly foliaged, secluded area with nobody else passing through. It is populated at night by men who cruise for sex. If someone enters by accident (which almost never happens), it would be quite clear that cruising is taking place by simple observation; it’s not as if he will be pounced upon within seconds. One has plenty of minutes to take stock of the situation and choose whether to stay or leave.
The principle here is that entrance + choosing to stay indicates consent. It’s like the way we sometimes land up on a porn website. When we see initial indications that it’s a porn website, we cannot deny we consciously make a choice whether to proceed deeper into the site or leave. That decision is ours to make, if we stay and navigate further in, it’s a decision that indicates consent.
The constable stayed. Others in the area would quite fairly read that act as indication of consent. There are two levels of consent in gay sex: (a) consent to be approached and (b) consent to have sex. By staying, the first level is considered by other gay men to have been given. It’s like saying “I am open to receiving offers” without guaranteeing that any offer will be accepted in full.
And that’s what the Malaysian guy did on seeing the officer. He proposed. Let’s not think of proposals as solely verbal negotiations (some heterosexuals might because rape precedents tend to treat consent as a verbal matter?), but in gay sex, consent negotiations are usually physical. It’s based on touch, then waiting for a reciprocal touch, and another touch and so on. If in the process neither side refuses an escalation of touch, then consent (b) to have sex is considered as given.
The Malaysian observed the standard protocol. He started verbally. The officer did not break off the conversation. Then he touched the chest. Again the officer did not say no; did not move away. Then the Malaysian touched his crotch.
At each stage of the proposal, the officer indicated he was willing to let it go to the next stage. By any reasonable measure, consent was given to let his crotch be touched.
Read Part 2: Policing propriety as an abuse of human rights (linked below).
Alex Au has been a gay activist and social commentator for 14 years and is the co-founder of People Like Us, Singapore. Alex is the author of the well-known Yawning Bread website.
讀者回應
If crusing is such a problem, then why not those who have a problem with it, pay for it?
THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS EXPECT SINGAPORE TO LIVE UP TO THEIR INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND TO STOP HARASSING THE LGBT COMMUNITY.
IT IS AN OPEN SECRET THAT WITH SUCH A LOVELY BUM THE PRIME MINISTER OF SINGAPORE IS LOOKED ON WITH ENVY BY MANY OLDER GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE...
THE PRIME MINISTER SHOULD DECIDE IF SINGAPORE IS GENUINELY TO TAKE ITS PLACE AMONG THE STATES THAT PROMOTE MODERNEITY AND EQUALITY- IF THE TAX REVENUES OF GAY RESIDENTS AND SPENDING OF GAY TOURISTS ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR SINGAPORE, LETS SEE AN END TO HARASSMENT, AND SOME RESPECT FOR THE GAY SPENDING THAT HELPED MAKE SINGAPORE GREAT.
FROM THE LGBT COMMUNITY, WE HAVE TO SHOW RESPECT FOR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY. FROM THE SINGAPORE STATE- THEY HAVE TO PROMOTE EQUALITY AND THIS WILL NOT BE DONE BY ENTRAPMENT AND HARASSMENT.
HERES TO A BETTER SINGAPORE THAT CAN BE A BEACON OF ENLIGHTMENT IN ASIA
DR GAVIN DUFFY
of course police lure people into traps to get criminals out in the open that's their job, knowing that it could happen deters this type of shit from happening
anyway gay cops will know the difference between flirting and hard core sexual vice in the park stuff
I am gay and I must admit that some gay behavior is getting out of control, people are complaining and our community needs to clean up its act
Alex always think we are victims and demeans us in this aspect like we are complete idiots or something, we are smart and gay and we should condemn irresponsible and reckless behavior
if I did that shit and get caught I would take fulll responsibility for my actions and face the consequences like the true and noble gay man that I am
I am sure Alex means well but he opinions on these matters totally creeps out this hot and attractive gay man
I am glad I have better gay mentors in my brothers and parents than him
I love having sex outside, but I am smart enough to do it where I know I won't get caught and to do it with someone I like
I don't think I need Alex's advice at all and he's created quite an industry for himself, better to listen to Suze Orman or gay people that we respect and have better values and advice-- she would know how to clean up this type of behavior in the parks
I think they should leave it as what it is, unless they do something only when they receive complains from the public, just like those hooker along geylang area that loiter infront of resident housing.
Thanks God, I live in Israel where being gay is legal and we share the same legal rights as others.
I avoid comming to Singapore mainly because of it's anti gay, homophobic government.
Its a shame there are no gay rallies, all over the world, against this kind of policy.
This is 2010 after all.
Hong Kong did it decades ago. And even India got rid of Section 377 last year.
Regarding what Zuza from Israel has said:
To me, it is not so much that our government is homophobic. The Prime Minister himself (as well as his father Lee Kuan Yew) is not homophobic but he has to bow to pressure from various conservative forces e.g. the group of church ladies who tried to usurp power in AWARE (Association of Women for Action & Research), disparaging remarks about gays by some pastors, etc. Acts of unacceptable gay behaviour were also reported in the press, such as the 2 gays who abused drugs while having fun, leading to one dead in the bedroom at River Valley Road and the other one unconscious and then hospitalised; as well as cases of adult males performing indecent acts on male juniors either in swimming pools or elsewhere. In yesterday's newspaper (13th July) page 3, this news was highlighted "Sex acts initiated by boy: Tutor gets 6 years, 6 strokes". So all this negative reports in the press arouse strong reactions from the homophobic community in our country. They will put pressure on the government and the police to act. Or the government will put pressure on the police to act before conservative forces point their fingers at the government for failing to "preserve decent values".
In US I am a school administrator and our lawyers always say, "if a student does not reply that is a sign of acceptance". Meaning, if I asked the student if he/she needed medical attention and he /she does not reply I must assume that they do and take them to the medical office, the same would be true in the opposite situation.
This entrapment must be addressed in court!!
But some uses of decoy can be controversial. Despite the fact that Alex Au uses a very feeble example to illustrate this point, his article is at least an attempt to show this controversy.
Many people have fantasies that they will not carry out in real life for many reasons. Being illegal is one main reason. Take having sex with a minor or a child. Laws say that even when a minor or a child repeatedly offers himself or herself to you, you must firmly say no. "Being tempted" is never an excuse. One reasoning behind this is that, if "temptation" can be used as an excuse in this case, then what is stopping it from being used in other cases such as "I was tempted to kill that person"?
Of course, the magnitude of crime is difference between having sex with a minor and killing a person. One controversy is that the "pray" cannot reasonably avoid the temptation offered by the decoy. Some people have a tendency to drink to excess and become an alcoholic. They avoid this by not getting near alcohol. What if alcohol just keeps popping up to tempt them?
That said the entrapment procedure doesn't help, we all know that if someone is not interested in us or vice versa we/they only have to use the word 'no' or walk away, by not doing so there is an implied consent.
The solution to this perceived problem is for the police, judiciary and executive to work with the LGBT community by removing archaic laws, provide safe meeting places, such as bars, saunas, clubs, community forums and support groups where the general public will not be compromised but LGBT community can meet without fear. There also has to be an education that public spaces should be available to all the public without intimidation with notices of regular police patrols to deter.
I am sorry for the Malaysian man in question and sorry that the police do not recognise that this action is regressive and rather than solving a problem it drives it further into the shadows and rustling bushes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal
Sex in public places (a men's restroom IS a public place, just so you know) is definitely not allowed in America. I don't know if any country actually permits this.
We, in Israel, have openly gay PM, high rank officers in the army, ambasadors etc. We have all civil partnership rights and the US is far away behind.
Having Guantanamo Bay and other cases of violating human rights I don't think that US is a place we wish to be like.
Comper the situation to Canada or Western Europe instead.
And for my friend "nightingale" from SG: Your government is the one who sends that policeman for his mission and it is certainly an homophobic misuse of tax payers money. The government should lead and not follow claric and MIddle Age attitude of anti gays media which exsist everywhere on earth. I wish you'll live in more freedom and you'll be more open to express all of what you feel and think.
A man approaches a law enforcement official (i.e. the decoy) in public. Without any physical contact, he proposes the official to meet him in his hotel room (or a legally private place). Here, he is also careful not to mention explicitly his sexual intent.
Then in the privacy of his hotel room, he suggests having sex with that official. Can this man be arrested for soliciting sex from a law enforcement official in the privacy of his hotel room?
Hmm. Where did you get your sources from? There is NOT a single legislation that doesn't pass through these 2 bodies since the earth was created. They always play the good guy bad guy tussle and still come out smelling like a rose. Singapore uses a different system of law and administration. Nothing is uniquely shocking in this dictator style capitalist state. Believing anything this administration has to say is like believing one will burn in hell for being gay. Zzz.
if the government officials loves to eat watermelon..are they gonna deploy police all over singapore and arrest anyone eating anything else but watermelon?
if the government officials loves to eat watermelon..are they gonna deploy police all over singapore and arrest anyone eating anything else but watermelon?
why not simply say do u want to take this further? i ahve to agree wit one of the posts about women. if u did this to a woman without consent its molestation
No prize for guessing which country!!!!
Before society can accept us (gays), we should also realise that by being indifferent to societal norms and cultures do not make us any better person. We are still subject to the standard criminal laws in any countries. 'Touch anyone in public place especially their private parts is considered molestation and indecent act in public' ...and as to whether that police officer seems to give consent or not in a non-verbally manner does not mean anything to someone who does not understand gay culture.
This Malaysian guy did what thousands of men and women do every Friday night, in Singapore and elsewhere. Yet you do not hear about the police throwing live baits on the streets to ruin the night of the average horny John or Jane. (Here they'd be sent to the police station by the truckload if the police were half as obnoxious as in SG)
Yes he certainly deserved to be punished, just like anyone, under Singaporean law for his act of public indecency. Yes, had he been caught red-handed by some patrol on a routine, they should torture the hell out of him or whatever they do to petty criminals. But no, that policeman should NOT have been there in the first place.
Before craving for just any misguided acceptance, we'd better affirm our rights as dignified human beings and citizens while decrying this sort of government initiative for what it truly is: plain, unconcealed, despicable, institutionalised homophobia.
And I've always wondered what sort of person of character (the policeman) would take on such a convincing role to want to lie, pretend, deceive, bluff another human being.
Are they really proud of what they do? Do they go to bed each night saying:" YES! I looked and acted like a very convincing cruiser and created my own crime to catch. I'm one hell of a good lier"
Don't get me wrong. I do NOT condone public exposure (BOTH gay or heterosexuals). I believe people need to be better behaved and there needs to be some self control but doing it this way isn't the best. It doesn't get my respect.
Here, despite the many, many faults in our country, Ireland has just passed the Civil Partnership law, with an awful lot of newspaper editorials calling for respect and equality for gay men and women, and all the political parties, and almost every last politician, welcoming the Act, saying that it was vitally important to treat gay people with respect and equality under the law.
As such - although, of course, the 'M' word won't be used - civil wedding ceremonies should be up and running here very soon, with the full force of The law used to protect such matters, and individuals, rather than to target them, as in Singapore.
I wonder when, or if, Singapore's leaders will ever wish for their country to be taken seriously as a place of equality and respect? Not any time soon, it appears...
I am serious.
I have seen QX posing as gay men.
Cannot lah! Per-chah Lobang!
Not convincing at all.
And my 2nd advice is to NEVER approach someone.
I was in the vicinity where two policemen were out to entrap someone.
They could never arrest me cause I never touched them.
One unlucky drunk groped one of the constables and was arrested. This was the same drunk who tried to grope me.
I agree that entrapment is a low blow.
Extremely derogatory.
But then, I never hold the QX of S'pore to much high regard. If they have so much free time, they should have gone on to other more pressing and serious crimes occurring in S'pore.
Homosexuality is not only natural but normal.
RECIPROCITY. You put your hand on another man's chest? Wait for some reciprocity! If he continues to stand there like a stick of wood, that alone should send a signal. Leave at once. Leave the premises!
Especially now that you have been duly informed that the Singapore police are still engaged in these archaic practices! Another thing to consider: it's always good to strike up a conversation first, before you grope. Just be careful what you say. It shouldn't take an Einstein if figure out if the guy is for real or a (dangerous --- to you!) fraud!
"We are Singapore (song).." bull s**t!
"Count on me Singapore (song)..." Don't count on me, Singapore!
"We the citizens of Singapore...to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality...(national pledge)" Bull s**t, bull s**t....BULL S**T!!
On a serious note it seem that low rate of crime in singapore left the local police with no better things to do but set traps on gays. as the saying goes: if cat has no better to do it licks its b@lls.
but I really think anyone with active brain can sense the trap (unless Police using feromones- but that would be too much drama).
Anyway, shame on SG cop force. Losers.
Just a reminder: Lee Kuan Yew did say explicity (as printed in the press some years ago) that there is no such thing as total EQUALITY. So you are right. Our Pledge is a BIG BULL. It's time to amend our Pledge by deleting the words "justice and equality".
Entrapment cases of this kind only reprsesent discrimination and out right harrassment by the police. And like the stockholm effect, most gay and lesbian members in Singapore support this or are afraid to protest it at that little park way far away where protesters are routinely not heard. It smacks of discrimination any way you go, but that is the norm in Singapore. Equal rights are only for the in vogue majority and civil rights are not heard of.
@4/5 - I can understand how something like these have a place on US TV programmes, given how ridiculous their Christian Fundamentalists are. Truth is, it's a hell lot easier to find heterosexual prostitutes who are Christians. Isn't that lovely? They have the audacity to point their fingers at others while not even looking into the mirror themselves.
I read that it had already been decided by the Chief Justice of SG about 16 years ago that there was in fact implied consent by an agent provocateur posing as a cruiser in a cruising area, and so this type of behaviour by police had stopped. I hope the guy pleads innocent, it'll be interesting to see how the prosecution get around that.
I guess Boo Jun Feng will have to change the ending of his film (about a victim of such police action), where he proudly proclaims such action had stopped.
On the question of privacy, courts in the UK decided a long time ago that [parts of] "public spaces" can be private, depending on circumstances - time of day or night, were the couples (gay or straight) concealing themselves in bushes, the extreme unlikelihood of a shocked member of the pubic happening across them, etc. So a secluded spot at night can be legally private.
Jokes aside, we all know that 'entrapment' is often used by the more incompetent members of the police force whenever there is pressure for them to show 'results' or nab a promotion...nothing new.
So maybe we should focus how best we should protect ourselves from falling into THEIR baits???
請先登入再使用此功能。