An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law.
The original version obliged Shia women to have sex with their husbands every four days at a minimum, and it effectively condoned rape by removing the need for consent to sex within marriage.
Wait a minute ... Wha??!! The Afghans fought off something that is currently *permitted* by Singapore law?
It is funny how something that is regressive but actively pursued (in Afghanistan) gets so much media attention and yet, something that is regressive but "status quo" (in Singapore) gets nary a mention.
EDIT: As a reader pointed out, I had failed to roundly condemn the new Afghan law. Indeed I do. Starving your wife for refusing to have sex with you is simply barbaric. There is no other way of putting it. I do, however, want to point out that my original focus had been on how the Afghans previously had no immunity clause for husbands which came as a surprise to me, given that Singapore does!
To the opponents of any changes to Singapore Law: Husbands denied sex by their wives have legal options outside of raping them - go to a prostitute (don't be cheap!), go masturbate, seek a divorce. It is hypocritical to say "Government should not interfere in peoples' personal sexual lives" when the Singapore government selectively does so (against gay people and against guys who masturbate with their windows open).
An anti-marital rape law does not even have to be harsh initially - barring aggravated assault, send the man in for counseling for a first offense. I could accept that. As long as men in Singapore know it is wrong and illegal to abuse their wives this way.
On the flip side, something to think about now ... how do we deal with situations where the wife rapes the husband?