[Datuk Dr Amar-Singh HSS is senior consultant paediatrician and head of Paediatric Department, Hospital RPB Ipoh]
AUGUST 4 — The recent judicial decision in East Malaysia seems to have escaped the attention of some media outlets. Another rapist married his child victim and was allowed to get away with the sexual abuse in court. The Borneo Post carried the distressing account of a 28 year old man who clearly took advantage of a 14-year-old child and was freed by court.
The report states the judge’s decision was “Since the complainant and the victim of the subject matter of this case wish to withdraw the complaint against the accused on the ground that she is now married to him, there is no necessity to proceed further with this case. “Therefore the accused is discharged not amounting to acquittal.”
It's amazing that, despite the outcry from many on previous such instances, our legal system continues to favour the rapist and not the victim. This decision by our legal system, in ruling in support of a rapist and sex abuser needs to be reviewed. Or systems must not continue to fail children.
Under the Penal Code this girl is under 16 years of age and it is obviously statutory rape; which means there is no defence. The judge would be required by law to rule in the favour of the victim and punish this rapist. If withdrawal of a police report makes this difficult the Child Act could be used.
Under the Child Act this person is under 18 and sexually abused. The Child Act is a mandatory reporting system, which means that withdrawing the police report is meaningless. The Welfare, Health and Police are mandated by law to take action. And the judge can rule in the favour of the victim against the perpetrator.
I wonder also who it is that allowed this marriage to take place and solemnised it? That authority also needs to be investigated by the Welfare Department for aiding and abetting sexual abuse.
I hope the Welfare Department will act immediately to rescue this child under the Child Act. She requires urgent and sustained emotional and psychological support and counselling. Her parents are also obviously not supporting her rights and needs.
Often the legal profession suggest that the rest of us are poor at understanding the law. But we know justice and injustice when we see it. We have witnessed a number of rulings that concern us. From adults who put fingers in the vagina of children being let off, to the continual abuse of children by marrying them to adults. The child in this situation will now have to live with her rapist.
The legal system must regain some sense of decorum and earn back the respect of the public.
We look to the legal system to protect children not harm them.
FMT in its report (extracts only) which follows seems to answer Dr Amar Singh:
“It is very common for rapists to marry their survivors, especially when they are underage, to cover up their crime,” Kuala Lumpur-based Women’s Aid Organisation spokeswoman Tan Heang Lee told Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“There is usually a high risk in this kind of cases that these girls will be subject to a lifetime of sexual abuse. Her marriage is basically an extension to rape,” she added.
Under Malaysia’s civil laws, the legal minimum age for marriage is 18 but Muslim girls who are under 16 can obtain permission to marry from Islamic courts.
Ethnic Malays, who are Muslim, make up about 60 per cent of the country’s 30 million population.
There are about 16,000 girls in Malaysia who were married before their 15th birthday, according to Human Rights Watch citing the latest available government statistics in 2010.
The report states the judge’s decision was “Since the complainant and the victim of the subject matter of this case wish to withdraw the complaint against the accused on the ground that she is now married to him, there is no necessity to proceed further with this case. “Therefore the accused is discharged not amounting to acquittal.”
It's amazing that, despite the outcry from many on previous such instances, our legal system continues to favour the rapist and not the victim. This decision by our legal system, in ruling in support of a rapist and sex abuser needs to be reviewed. Or systems must not continue to fail children.
Under the Penal Code this girl is under 16 years of age and it is obviously statutory rape; which means there is no defence. The judge would be required by law to rule in the favour of the victim and punish this rapist. If withdrawal of a police report makes this difficult the Child Act could be used.
Under the Child Act this person is under 18 and sexually abused. The Child Act is a mandatory reporting system, which means that withdrawing the police report is meaningless. The Welfare, Health and Police are mandated by law to take action. And the judge can rule in the favour of the victim against the perpetrator.
I wonder also who it is that allowed this marriage to take place and solemnised it? That authority also needs to be investigated by the Welfare Department for aiding and abetting sexual abuse.
I hope the Welfare Department will act immediately to rescue this child under the Child Act. She requires urgent and sustained emotional and psychological support and counselling. Her parents are also obviously not supporting her rights and needs.
Often the legal profession suggest that the rest of us are poor at understanding the law. But we know justice and injustice when we see it. We have witnessed a number of rulings that concern us. From adults who put fingers in the vagina of children being let off, to the continual abuse of children by marrying them to adults. The child in this situation will now have to live with her rapist.
The legal system must regain some sense of decorum and earn back the respect of the public.
We look to the legal system to protect children not harm them.
FMT in its report (extracts only) which follows seems to answer Dr Amar Singh:
“It is very common for rapists to marry their survivors, especially when they are underage, to cover up their crime,” Kuala Lumpur-based Women’s Aid Organisation spokeswoman Tan Heang Lee told Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“There is usually a high risk in this kind of cases that these girls will be subject to a lifetime of sexual abuse. Her marriage is basically an extension to rape,” she added.
Under Malaysia’s civil laws, the legal minimum age for marriage is 18 but Muslim girls who are under 16 can obtain permission to marry from Islamic courts.
Ethnic Malays, who are Muslim, make up about 60 per cent of the country’s 30 million population.
There are about 16,000 girls in Malaysia who were married before their 15th birthday, according to Human Rights Watch citing the latest available government statistics in 2010.
Alternatively the rapist should have a "bright future" as had been the case of Noor Afizal Azizan in 2012.
The rapist was given a '2nd chance' because he only had consensual sex with a 13-year old - yes, 'consensual sex' with a 13-year old in the words of the judge.
He was then a national bowler, a so-called sporting "wonder" who was said by the judge to have a 'bright future'.
Some Malaysians seem to have a generous spirit towards rapists and paedophiles, perhaps due to their hardup-ness for talents, as also in the case of convicted child pornography collector Nur Fitri Azmeer Nordin who is now serving time in Britain. Majlis Amanah Raya (Mara) councillor commented [in his personal capacity] on : "I feel he has to be given a second chance for his future. Everyone makes mistakes."
They seem more interested in the 'future' of slugs like Noor Afizal Azizan and Nur Fitri Azmeer Nordin rather than the rape victims, though another equally disgusting slug by the name of Chuah Guan Jui was jailed for 5.5 years committing statutory rape on an underage lil' girl.
Initially, indeed it became a legal joke, Noor's '2nd chance' provided by our generous judges became a new astonishing stare decisis (legal precedent), where on the basis of Noor's '2nd chance' Chuah was also given a '2nd chance'.
But following public outcry over the moronic court ruling (stare decisis or not) and consequently an appeal by the prosecutor, Chuah had his '2nd chance' subsequently withdrawn and was sent to prison. The f* maggot deserves it.
However, unlike Chuah, Noor being a Chosen One with a 'bright future' continues to enjoy his '2nd chance'.
Needless to say, many of us were totally gob-smacked by the judge's explanation in Noor Afizal's case in which he (the judge) had dared, in a case of statutory rape, to offer the excuse that Noor Afizal did not use force and that it was consensual sex.
Were those new laws no one other than the judge was aware of?
I wonder whether Noor is still representing the states or even the nation with his bowling ball with which he managed to brilliantly strike down all the judges?
As for the double standard treatments of Noor and Chuah, it's okay - such things happen in Malaysia because what's good for the gooser is not necessarily so for the gander.
One puji-sayang the former as it may lay golden eggs (hence one's hardup-ness) while one sembelih the latter and gorengnya, wakakaka.
No comments:
Post a Comment