“Truth” and “Consent” in Sexual Violence Reporting in Criminal Justice and Legal Contexts in Singapore

Abstract

This chapter examines the systemic tolerance of violence against women through qualitative interviews with professionals working in socio-legal settings in Singapore. We examine criminal justice and welfare professionals’ beliefs about the veracity of sexual assault claims at various stages of the investigative and victim support process. Our data reveals that different forms of sexual violence claims are rendered valid or invalid, “to-be-taken-seriously” or not, according to a series of gendered myths and stereotypes. Institutional routines and practices operate according to a set of assumptions regarding which accounts of sexual violence are endorsed because of which type of accounts are likely to succeed in court. This has two implications: firstly, victim accounts are continually interrogated to see whether they are believable and robust (i.e. whether their accounts are likely to “stand up” in court); and secondly, the principle of consent vis-à-vis the accounts given comes under considerable scrutiny. Crucially, this chapter argues that these socio-legal gendering modalities underpin a systemic tolerance of violence which, in the Singapore case, supports a particular regime of gender inequality. Challenging the structures of domination that underpin reproduction regimes and gender inequality are more likely to successfully transform the landscape on sexual violence than women’s “protection” in legalistic or criminal justice interventions.