On 19 May 2025, former Mediacorp actor, Ian Fang, was sentenced to 40 months’ jail for sexual offences involving a 15-year-old.
Fang had pleaded guilty to three charges of sexual penetration of a girl who was under 16 years – which are offences under section 376A of the Penal Code. Three similar charges were taken into consideration for sentencing, along with one count of obstructing justice and one count of stalking.
Fang’s sentence caused a stir on social media, with many netizens wondering why he only received jail time for the offences, and no caning was imposed.
With reference to Ian Fang’s case, this article offers an explainer on the situations when offenders are sentenced to caning for committing sexual offences in Singapore.
When Would Sexual Offenders be Caned for Their Offences?
Generally speaking, in the context of sexual offences, caning is typically reserved for more severe or exploitative cases.
These would usually involve one or more aggravating factors, such as:
- Where the victims are under 14 years of age;
- Where there is use of force, threats/violence, or deception on the part of the offender against the victim;
- Where the act causes serious harm to the victim, like exposure to sexually transmitted diseases or even an unwanted pregnancy.
These considerations also apply in the case of sexual offences such as outrage of modesty (also known as molestation), where caning is a potential punishment but would typically be imposed in the presence of aggravating factors. For example, the offender had a previous record of committing similar offences, the assault was pre-planned, or the offender used excessive force on the victim before or even during the assault.
Why was Ian Fang Not Sentenced to Caning?
In Fang’s case, he was not sentenced to caning as he was charged for offences under the Penal Code that do not provide for caning as a punishment.
Section 376A of the Penal Code (Sexual penetration of a minor below 16 years old)
Ian Fang was charged for committing offences under section:
- 376A(1)(a) of the Penal Code: Where the offender penetrates, with the offender’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth of a person below 16 years of age.
- 376A(1)(b) of the Penal Code: Where the offender sexually penetrates, with a part of the offender’s body (other than the penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus of a person below 16 years of age.
For these offences, it is not necessary to prove that the victim consented to the act(s), nor is it a defence if the victim had indeed consented to the act(s).
The penalties for these offences are set out under sections 376A(2) and 376A(3), the specific legal punishment provisions for these offences. These provisions take into account different factors in setting out the maximum punishment for offenders, as illustrated in the table below:
| Section | Maximum Penalty |
| 376A(2)(a): Where the victim is of or above 14 years of age but below 16 years of age, and where the offender is in a relationship that is exploitative of the victim | Up to 20 years’ jail, and a fine or caning. |
| 376A(2)(b): Where the victim is of or above 14 years of age but below 16 years of age, and in all other cases (where there is no exploitative relationship between the victim and offender) | Up to 10 years’ jail and/or a fine. There is no caning provided for under this provision. |
| 376A(3): Where the offence is committed against a victim who is below 14 years of age | Up to 20 years’ jail, and a fine or caning. |
In Fang’s case, he was sentenced under Section 376A(2)(b), which applies to all other cases where there was no exploitative relationship. This section only provides for a jail term and/or a fine, but there is no caning.
Section 376A(3) did not apply to Fang, as the victim was 15 years old at the time when the offences were committed.
The issue of whether there was an “exploitative relationship” or not
Essentially, the main issue in Fang’s case was whether there was an “exploitative relationship” between Fang and the victim when the offences were committed. This would have been the determining factor that would have impacted the section under which he would have been sentenced (i.e. section 376A(2)(a) or 376A(2)(b)).
A key factor in determining whether there is exploitation or not is looking at power imbalances in the relationship between the offender and the victim — such as if the offender is a teacher, doctor, or even a parent. Other factors taken into consideration include the age differences between the offender and the victim, and the degree of control or influence exercised by the offender over the victim.
In Fang’s case, the prosecutors, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, ultimately did not classify the relationship as an exploitative one. This meant that the harsher penalty under section 376A(2)(a), which gives the court the option to impose a sentence of caning as well, did not apply. In addition, court documents did not state that Fang had pressured the victim, nor was there any coercion involved.
—
Ultimately, the charges that are brought against an offender for sexual offences are a matter of prosecutorial discretion, and each case must be looked at on its own particular facts, circumstances and available evidence.
In other words, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach when it comes to charges brought against sexual offenders, or that a blanket caning sentence would be imposed on all sexual offenders/offences.
