The debate between women's groups and the Bar Council on the lately proposed "aggravated rape" amendment to the Penal Code by the former has received wide coverage by the media.

The existing Penal Code (Section 375A) defines rape as "sexual intercourse (limited to penile penetration) against woman's will". Object intrusion, anal intrusion and oral intrusion are not included. The code also provides that sexual intercourse, with or without consent, by a legal husband is not considered rape.

The current code is truly not inclusive enough to charge sexual infringement other than penile penetration, introduction of any objects (other than penis) through the anus and mouth and marital rape. However, oral sex and anal sex are crimes, with or without consent, under existing Penal Code, Section 377A.

The definition of "sexual intercourse" within the context of rape should herewith include insertion of, or causing the insertion of, the penis into the vagina or anus or mouth, and insertion, or causing the insertion of, any part of the body or an object into the vaginal or anal orifice against a woman's will, except when such insertion is made strictly for medical purposes by a medical practitioner. The focus is on "oral, vaginal and anal intrusion against a woman's will" no matter by whom, be it a stranger or a close relative, a respected leader or a loved one.

Thus, what is to be done is to expand the physical definition and not social definition of rape. If anything is to be changed to the social definition, that would be deleting "sexual intercourse, with or without consent, by a legal husband is not considered rape" in the current code.

However, the amendment proposed by women's groups is to add subsections 375(2)(f) : " ... with her consent, when the consent is obtained by using his position of authority over her or because of a professional relationship or other relationships of trust to her". What the Bar Council is most concerned about the amendment is that "even consent for sexual relationship could be taken as rape". They fear such a "wide" definition of rape could be easily violated.

The counter argument made by women's group, in response to the Bar Council's objection is based on 'good motives', that is to help the rape survivors to file a charge against offender(s). Many of the women's groups further claim that there is 'a very low' chance that women might 'cry wolf' or abuse the section. Even if this happens, the prosecution would still have to prove its case in court."

If kind motives and goodwill is the only and final justification of any legislation, the ISA has a good reason to exist because that is the way the ruling party claims ISA to be - good and kind for the public at large. If a objective review is the justification for the current strict amendment, which is taken as too 'wide' and could easily be violated, then the focus of the argument should be on the principle of criminal law and procedural justice.

Is the amendment against any principle of law, specifically criminal law? If yes, how shall it be changed to be consistent with the principle? What kind of trial procedure is considered justice? Is the current amendment consistent with fairness?

In reporting the debate, some of the local media have already portrayed the debate as 'a war between two sexes'. If the women's groups and the Bar Council continue to label, such as calling each other as 'fanatic' or 'chauvinistic' or 'in favour of some groups', etc, to win their arguments, it is likely that the focus is going to be as that portrayed by some of the media. But this is not a war between two sexes, and it should not be. It is a battle between crime and justice. We should all go back to the key of the problem we have in the legislation.

What the women's groups are trying to argue is that they find it hard to file a charge against some offenders and that's the reason they want to amend it. This is definitely true but is the current amendment the right solution? Are 'goodwill' and 'kind motives' the best justification for such an amendment? I think the solution lies also in the investigation procedure.

What those concerned with gender equality (including myself) should do is to educate the public, and most important of all to professionalise the police, social workers, medical staff and whatever point of service where a rape survivor is likely to look for help for legal and procedural advice.

If these involve parties that are not rape victim sensitive, stricter social definition of rape is not likely to work. Such education should be done together with the expansion of the physical definition of rape and the deleting of unnecessary clauses.

Rape-victim sensitiveness includes the protection of rape survivors from secondary harm which is likely to be inflicted during investigations and trials. We all know how well some of the police and medical staff handle rape cases when a rape survivor comes upon them. Some of them even try to 'persuade' the survivor to get married with the offender.

Lastly, there are a lot of things to be done in this fight of justice against crime. The journey to gender equality is never a short one. Let's do it together.