I REFER to the Forum letter, "Decriminalise consensual underage sex", by Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy (Nov 13).

In my view, there is no need to decriminalise consensual underage sex.

Let's consider two cases of consensual sex: first, between a minor and an adult; second, between two minors.

The only relevant difference between an adult and a minor is that the adult fully realises the impact of his actions, while a minor may not. Therefore, while it is sensible to put on kid gloves to handle such cases, there should not be a legal exception.

Mr Ramasamy argues that according to political theorist John Stuart Mill, society may not enforce its moral perceptions unless its violation causes objectively perceptible harm to others, and consensual sex does not cause harm to others.

I would like to point out that this principle is not universally accepted. Even if it were universally accepted, one must realise that Mill himself saw that children are an exception to his principle. This, again because they do not have full realisation of the impact of their actions. For example, they may not be aware of the diseases that can be transmitted through unprotected sex.

Also, Mr Ramasamy criticises the Attorney-General's position of not actively prosecuting underage sex while keeping it criminal as "undermining the integrity of the Penal Code". I do not think that is the case. Theft is a criminal offence, but minors who steal are not necessarily prosecuted. It is hard to see how the integrity of the Penal Code is undermined.

I fully agree that consensual underage sex is a delicate issue and that better guidance, care and support by parents, schools and social workers is the way to go. For specific cases where prosecution is necessary, penalties for consensual underage sex should be made less harsh than consensual sex between an adult and a minor. However, making it completely legal is not the way forward.

Leung Weiwen

This article was first published in The Straits Times.