Full disclosure before sex or go to jail…

A company director who has a fling with a female executive is now suing her for allegedly giving him herpes, an STD. It has been alleged that the woman told him that she was ‘clean’ before they became intimate. I found this article (in today’s newspapers) rather interesting as I had a conversation with a friend last night which touched on the topic of the new proposed amendments to the Infectious Disease Act (Cap. 137) requiring sufferers of HIV/AIDS to inform their partners of their condition before sexual activities. Although only applicable to HIV/AIDs I thought it was an interesting coincidence nonetheless that we spoke about it last night and it this story came out in the papers today. The proposed amendments to the relevant sections are as follows:

Repeal and re-enactment of section 23
Section 23 of the principal Act is repealed and the following section
substituted therefor:
“Sexual activity by persons with AIDS or HIV Infection
23.—(1) A person who knows that he has AIDS or HIV Infection
shall not engage in any sexual activity with another person unless,
before the sexual activity takes place —
(a) he has informed that other person of the risk of contracting
AIDS or HIV Infection from him; and
(b) that other person has voluntarily agreed to accept that risk.

(2) A person who does not know, but who has reason to believe that
he has, or has been exposed to the risk of contracting, AIDS or HIV
Infection shall not engage in any sexual activity with another person
unless —
(a) before the sexual activity takes place —
(i) he has informed that other person of the risk of
contracting AIDS or HIV Infection from him and that
other person has voluntarily agreed to accept that risk;
or
(ii) he —
(A) has undergone a serological or other test for the
purpose of ascertaining whether he has AIDS or
HIV Infection and the result was negative; and
(B) has not, between the time of the test and the
sexual activity with that other person, engaged in
any sexual or other activity that might have
exposed him to the risk of HIV Infection; or
(b) during the sexual activity, he takes reasonable precautions to
ensure that he would not expose that other person to the risk
of contracting AIDS or HIV Infection.

(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be
guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10
years or to both.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person shall not, only by
reason of age, be presumed incapable of engaging in sexual activity.

(5) For the purposes of this section and section 24, a person shall be
deemed to know that he has AIDS or HIV Infection if a serological
test or other test for the purpose of ascertaining the 5 presence of HIV
Infection carried out on him has given a positive result and the result
was communicated to him.

(6) In this section, “sexual activity” means —
(a) sexual activity occasioned by the introduction into the
vagina, anus or mouth of any person of any part of the penis
of another person; or
(b) cunnilingus.”.


The Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) is the principal piece of health legislation that deals with the prevention and control of infectious diseases in Singapore. It is jointly administered by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the National Environmental Agency (NEA). The current proposed amendments are meant to plug the gaps in our public health response system , to grant the MOH further powers to deal with public health emergencies, as well as to achieve better control and prevention of HIV/AIDs. The MOH is conducting a 6-week public consultation between 28 September and 9 November 2007, before it receives its 1st reading in Parliament expected in January 2008.

The law as it currently stands only makes it an offence for someone who has HIV/AIDs to have sexual intercourse with another person without informing that person of the risks of contracting the disease. It is not an offence if the HIV/AIDs sufferer did not know of his own condition. As such, all the HIV/AIDs sufferer had to do is not to get tested.

The new amendments however, would in addition, make it an offence for a person who does not know, but has reason to believe that he has, or has been exposed to the risk of contracting, HIV/AIDs to engage in sexual activity with another person without informing that other person of the risk of contracting HIV/AIDs from him. He would only be ‘excused’ if he had undergone a serological or other test and the result was negative; has not, between the time of the test and the sexual activity with that other person, engaged in any sexual or other activity that might have exposed him to the risk of HIV Infection; or during the sexual activity, he takes reasonable precautions to ensure that he would not expose that other person to the risk of contracting HIV/AIDs.

The new amendments also seek to increase the penalties from the current $10,000 maximum fine and/or 2 years imprisonment to $50,000 and/or 10years imprisonment.

I wonder however whether there is the possibility that someone is informed and consents (either because it is in the ‘heat of the moment’ and the disclosure is not fully considered) and then when it finally ‘sinks in’ (before or after the person contracts HIV/AIDs) she/he accuses the other person of non-disclosure? Should Singapore introduce and recognise the concept of the ‘pre-sex contract’? The pre-sex contract, thought up by the Americans (of course), has gained popularity in the US by celebrities and high-level business people. It typically contains a list of sexual activities which the can be ‘ticked’ to indicate those which she/he is willing to participate in. Perhaps this could include an item such as “you have been informed that [Name] has HIV/AIDs or has reason to believe that he is at risk of HIV/AIDs and have consented to sex…”