On the Jack Neo sex scandal and sexual harassment in the workplace

Much has been said about Singapore filmmaker Jack Neo’s infidelity recently. But little has been raised in regard to how his behaviour likely constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, and in particular, the lack of specific laws in Singapore that protect employees from sexual harassment and give employees an avenue for seeking redress.

What is sexual harassment? One definition is that sexual harassment is the “intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favours”. It includes a range of behaviours from seemingly mild transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse or sexual assault.

In the recent Jack Neo scandal, a number of women alleged that he made unwelcome sexual advances on them while they were in his employ or acting in his movies. Such behaviour certainly constitutes sexual harassment.

In this author’s view, every employee (whether female or male) should be protected by law from sexual harassment at the workplace. Furthermore, any employee who is sexually harassed at the workplace deserves an avenue of redress against the harasser. This is especially so if the harasser is in a position of authority over the victim. An employee who has been sexually harassed at the workplace should not be helpless without legal protection to defend herself or himself, and should not have to make the wretched choice of either losing the job or giving in to the unwelcome sexual demands of the harasser. If at all, the harasser is the one who should be penalised.

Now, sexual harassment is illegal in many countries, but unfortunately for Singapore employees, sexual harassment is not specifically illegal in Singapore.

In other countries, employers and harassers are legally responsible (under criminal and civil laws) for sexual harassment against their employees and liable to them for damages (i.e. monetary compensation for loss or injury). Examples of such countries include the United States, United Kingdom, the member states of the European Union, Australia, China, Philippines, India and Israel.

Why are there no specific laws enacted against sexual harassment in Singapore? It seems to this author that there are no good reasons why not, and it is time this lacuna is addressed by the Singapore government. In fact, sexual harassment is a prevalent problem in Singapore. In a 2008 study conducted by AWARE, 54% of the 500 participants surveyed reported having been sexually harassed at work. This includes both men and women.

Victimised employees need protection. And in this author’s personal opinion, it would not do to condone, or to rally around and support a harasser. Laws are vital to ensure that employers take pro-active steps to protect their employees from sexual harassment in the workplace, safeguard their careers and livelihoods, and give them a way to lodge their grievances. Having laws against sexual harassment will benefit not only local employees, but also the significant population of foreigners who come to Singapore to work (and who may otherwise be deterred from coming or harmed by the lack of sexual harassment laws). Certainly, such laws would go a long way in deterring a number of would-be offenders and protecting employees, and reprehensible cases such as the Jack Neo saga could be minimised or averted.

On internet security in Singapore

According to a recent report by computer security expert, McAfee, Singapore has the 10th riskiest internet domains in the world.

This means that if you surf to a Singapore-registered website which ends with “.sg”, the chances of your computer contracting some form of malware is very high. According to McAfee, Singapore’s risky websites rose appreciably from 0.3% last year to 9.1% this year, although, McAfee found that the dangers appear to be of a moderate level rather than severe level. Interestingly, McAfee highlighted Chinese pharmacy spam sites in Singapore as a main cause of risk.

In comparison, Malaysia’s domains (.my) were ranked relatively safe at #80 out of 104 domains with a rating of only 0.3% risk, while Japan’s domains (.jp) were established to be the safest country domains with a rating of only 0.1% risk.

According to McAfee, when scammers and hackers register their malicious websites, they look for registrars with:

• lack of regulation


• ease of registration


• lowest price

Given that Singapore’s domains (.sg) are ranked among the top 10 riskiest internet domains in the world, presumably, scammers and hackers view that there is little regulation involved in registering the .sg domains, and they are easy as well as cheap to register.

Now, why should dangerous internet domains be an important concern for Singapore? Well, a bad reputation for Singapore websites could negatively affect legitimate businesses in Singapore who intend to rely on e-commerce. Internet users may not trust websites ending with .sg for fear of contracting malware or succumbing to scams. In fact, if Singapore’s standing as a reliable and trustworthy place in the internet world is lowered, the potential impact is global.

So, does Singapore have laws against computer crimes such as websites with malware? Yes, in fact, it does. The main legislation is the Computer Misuse Act which was passed in 1993. There are a variety of activities which are considered offences under the Act, such as:

• unauthorised access to, or modification of, computer material


• unauthorised use or interception of computer service


• unauthorised obstruction of use of computer


• unauthorised disclosure of access code

The penalties for committing these offences are severe, especially if damage is caused, ranging up to fines of S$50,000 and jail terms of 10 years. If the offences involve threats to national security, the penalties can be enhanced up to fines of S$100,000 and jail terms of 20 years.

So, on the face of it, Singapore appears to have adequate laws against computer crimes. But are these laws being enforced? Well, the main agency tasked to tackle computer crimes, is the Technology Crime Division of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Singapore Police Force. This division conducts investigation, forensic examination and prosecution into technology-related offences committed under the Computer Misuse Act, such as hacking and unauthorised access to account.

Is the Technology Crime Division doing enough to counter scammers and hackers in Singapore? At present, this author is unable to find specific statistics on how many scammers and hackers have been successfully prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act. Admittedly, it is a difficult job to fight computer crime and to bring elusive scammers and hackers before the law. Even with a dedicated unit like the Technology Crime Division, the evidence of Singapore’s poor security ranking for internet domains indicate that many scammers and hackers do thrive in Singapore.

What else can Singapore do? Well, the key may lie in making it difficult for scammers and hackers to register their domains. The .sg domains are registered by SGNIC’s accredited registrars, such as SingNet. Perhaps, for a start, these registrars can require domain applicants (as well as current domain owners) to furnish more detailed information and proof of identity. And whenever news of malicious domains is notified to the registrars, the registrars should act quickly to investigate and disable such domains, as well as report them to the police. In this respect, SGNIC may also consider providing an easy website form for users to report malicious Singapore websites.

Update: Local media picked up on this news on 18 December 2009.

On the rule of law - form vs. substance

The concept of the “rule of law” generally means that the law is above every person, and it applies equally to every person.

Whenever criticised about human rights issues in Singapore, the ruling PAP government likes to bring up mention that there is “rule of law” in Singapore. However, it must be noted that there is no precise definition for the expression “rule of law”, and its actual meaning varies with different people. So what the PAP government likely means when it talks about the “rule of law”, is a formal, positivist interpretation, i.e., there is a system of man-made laws which are enacted and carried out by the government.

But this is no big deal. Practically all countries today with functioning governments will possess the “rule of law” in this sense. As a matter of fact, some of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by Hitler’s Nazi government under legitimately enacted laws. Yet, after World War II ended, Hitler’s government was subsequently tried and convicted for crimes against humanity.

So, as seen, the formal view of the rule of law contains no requirements whatsoever as to the content of the law. There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity of the law and ethics or morality, and critics have noted that such a system creates a ruling elite that has the power to manipulate through the law. It has thus been observed that consequently, the law cannot serve as an effective barrier to a government’s abuse of power because power structures in society, not the law itself, determine the outcome of legal issues and problems.

There is, however, another higher interpretation of the phrase, “rule of law”. This is known as the substantive interpretation, which holds that the rule of law intrinsically protects human rights. The concept of natural justice comes into play here, and whereas a formal, positivist view would claim that a law can be unjust without it being any less a law, a substantive, naturalist view would observe that there is something legally deficient about an unjust law. As mentioned, individual human rights (i.e., the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law) are protected under a substantive rule of law system, and an unfair, oppressive or unjust law is in a sense regarded as no law at all.

To put it in the local context, for example, Article 14(b) of the Singapore Constitution provides that all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The right of peaceful assembly is generally considered to be an important civil right for citizens. There is a caveat to this right of peaceful assembly, and that is, parliament may impose such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of national security or public order.

The PAP government had, based on this caveat, enacted rigorous laws (in particular, the Public Order Act) to restrict the holding of public assemblies. One notable aspect of these restrictions is that the PAP government had delegated responsibility for public assemblies to the police, and any person wanting to hold a public assembly is required to obtain a police permit. Unfortunately for the opposition parties in Singapore, the police categorically outlawed all outdoor political events and will not ever grant public assembly permits for such purposes. This in essence deprives a group of citizens of their fundamental right to peaceful assembly. In this scenario, there is rule of law in the formal sense, whereby a government enacts certain laws and carries them out to the letter. But the question is, is there substantive application of the rule of law?

In order for the PAP government to truly address any criticisms of human rights transgressions, it must be able to demonstrate that Singapore has the rule of law not only in the formal sense, but also, in the substantive meaning of the phrase.