Singapore Punishes A Couple For Photos
The video shows a woman in a spaghetti strap top and very short shorts strolling outside a mall in central Singapore. She looks around to make sure no one can see her. Then she pulls down her top, revealing a breast to her partner, who is filming her.
The woman, Nguyen Thi Anh Thy, and her husband, Jeffrey Chue, say no one saw them make the video in May 2020. A day later, Mr. Chue uploaded it to a private channel he had created on the messaging app Telegram.
But the video quickly found its way to the internet. The front page of the Shin Min Newspaper featured photos of Ms. Nguyen with the headline: “Husband takes nude photos of wife on street.” An anonymous person filed a police report.
Two years later, a court in Singapore fined the couple $17,000, saying the video and other photos of Ms. Nguyen in various states of undress violated laws against nudity and obscenity. The couple was also convicted of providing and abetting false information.
Singapore has long imposed numerous restrictions on behavior in pursuit of conservative views of morality and an enviable public safety record. In some cases, the country has adopted a strict stance on violations, even when occurring in one’s home. The government does not offer statistics of how many people are prosecuted on similar charges although legal experts say such cases are rare.
In 2009, a court fined a man $1,900 for being naked in his apartment while in clear view of his neighbors. Last year, another man was fined $2,200 for uploading photos and videos on OnlyFans, a website that offers sexually explicit photos to paying subscribers.
Supporters of Mr. Chue and Ms. Nguyen have questioned why sexual activity between consenting adults is still criminalized. And rights groups have called on the government to use consent as a deciding factor to determine whether sexual acts are illegal. Mr. Chue and Ms. Nguyen argue that it is hypocritical for the state to go after them while it allows prostitution in a regulated district.
But Singapore’s minister for communications and information, Josephine Teo, said last year, answering a question about OnlyFans, that the government had to “ensure that such content creation platforms do not expose Singaporeans to the risk of exploitation and abuse, especially our youth.”
Eugene Tan, an associate professor of law at the Singapore Management University, said, “People might regard Singapore laws as being somewhat prudish, that these people should be free to express themselves.” He added, “In Singapore, certainly, we don’t regard this as freedom of expression, particularly when it seems to have a negative effect on society’s social mores.”
After their conviction, Mr. Chue and Ms. Nguyen left for Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, where Ms. Nguyen is from. They say they were unfairly penalized as sexual deviants when all they were doing was exploring an alternative lifestyle consensually.
Many of the couple’s supporters say the case has prompted them to remove their own erotic photos and videos from private websites.
In October, Mr. Chue and Ms. Nguyen were found guilty. In her ruling, Janet Wang, a district judge, said it was “irrelevant that the platform caters to consenting parties and that the objection lies in the obscene nature of the materials being disseminated.”
Mr. Chue acknowledged that he “made a stupid mistake” and that he takes the blame for it. In November, the couple moved to Vietnam, where they are expecting a baby boy in May.
Mr. Chue said he had not been able to find employment because of the media coverage. To pay the fine, they say they had to sell everything. They have no intention of ever returning to Singapore.
“We didn’t do what we did at the expense of anyone,” Mr. Chue said. “Our point is — what they’ve done to us — do we deserve this?”
An image for a select few becomes front-page news.