Here are 2 key points that don't seem to make this a good law. It seems to be something to please a foreign gallery as pointed out by a forummer.
1) the inability of the accused to defend himself even if he genuinely felt that she was 18 because the law takes away the defence on age
2) she can have sex with anyone as she has crossed the "minor" classification of being above 16 but as she had taken money she is therefore re-classified as minor again. In essence, the law treats her as a minor if she are below 16 and she does not take money but if she takes money than she immediately become a minor if she is below 18..
sounds odd..
This is something that was sent to me for airing.
" a. For many who will be convicted the clincher will be the very issue of not being able to offer a defense that we did not or could not have reasonably, rationally, on the predonrance of evidence known that she was under 18. The only defense left thus is that we did not do it, or we paid for her company and not sex.
b. That presumption applies in the UK, but it kicks in at a fairer age and for a more serious offense, i.e sex with a minor and at 13
c. As far as I can remember within the Singapore Penal Code. There are two sorts of presumption. A presumption which shift the burden of proof, but it means that you can offer a defense i.e in Drug Trafficking. and a presumption which does not allow a defense. which as far as I know exists only within the " Fire Arms Act" for unlawful discharge of a firearm, commercial sex with a minor defined at 18 and sex with a minor under 16.
d. Please note that sex with a minor is treated more seriously under a count of statutory rape with sentences including caning as an example. If any of us had deliberately had sex with an under 16 we would be facing an infinitely more serious charge.
e. So thus comes the logical illogic, If a 16 year old can legally have sex, but she cannot legally sell herself for sex and if she is caught selling sex its her customers who face the music. Yet the customers are limited in their defense even if they can proof she lied or swore blind to them she was 18 in the same manner as a Man who had sex with a minor who cannot offer the same defense. "