The right of reply

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Ridiculous write


This is another nonsense garbage thinking we’re stupid. This Ron took a moral highground condemning BN politicising merdeka but praise janji democracy. Utter rubbish. Janji Democracy was simply a political platform to counter BN and the fact that he did not condemn PR who put Anwar who has no selangorian locus standi as the VIP speaker and to receive salutation from the army and police speaks volume of his corrupt value. To him right or wrong depends on who does it. BN does it is wrong but PR does it its fine. Rubbish. Both are wrong. And to rub salt, this ignorant RON related the afrizal’s case with BN!!! It was the court lah. Its separate from the executive. The Judge decided himself you fool. The judge’s reasoning is similar to those in the developed jurisdiction.


2 thoughts on “Ridiculous write

  1. Interesting debate between you, Kathy and Abnizar. As aware I am not a lawyer hence I would not base my write from the context of law, however the fact is both cases involve adults and minors at least in the eyes of our law, not among teenagers so I don’t know how Romeo and Juliet laws apply. For instance in Canada, a very light punishment if the so called statutory rape happen between two teenagers but not when one is deemed as adult in their definition of consent age. I think some of your argument is similar to Abnizar, not relevant to the present cases since both accused is above 18 years old while the victim is 13 years old if I don’t read wrongly.

    Age of consent have everything to do with social mores and not science, therefore the age of consent can be vary in every country and the gap could be 12 to 21. Being one that with good legal knowledge, you would agree that we have to draw a line base on our own values and standard though in reality, one 14 years old could be more mature than a 18 years old due to (sex) education background but no way our law can cover each case, hence I think the court may have some jurisdiction when come to sentencing. However as I wrote in other blog, the set limit on porn, drinking, sex, gambling and driving is not because these act are dangerous but because of concerns minors aren’t ready to evaluate and understand the implications of these things. Thus the court decision may defect such objective.

    The funny part is that I notice the three of you actually share the same values, but you have the unique and discerning capability to spot others incorrect and not relevant argument, grasp the opportunity to confront that particular weak part, in fact your argument is one that sound more like a lawyer 🙂

    The problem now is how we (or courts) judge similar case in future? If no incarceration then what? Or shall we change the age of consent?

    PS/ Sorry can’t participate the debate at that blog since I do not wish to comment there.

    • Thanks HY,

      As usual very deep question. And you’re right on the common values we have on adult minor statutory rape.

      Your question is simple. Since he is 18 he is an adult and thus must commit statutory rape.

      But our penal code is not like that. Assuming he is 15 years old
      he will still be committing an offence. The male referred to in the penal code refers to male of any age.

      Another way to look at it is if we take 18 as adult what about 17 or 16.? If the boy is 17 years old and the girl is 16 and both had fallen in love (though puppy) the current law states that the boy gets jail but the girl nothing. What if the boy being 15 and the girl 16 had consensual sex? Under our statutory rape case only the boy goes to jail but not the girl.

      Rape must involve coercion. If consented to especially if consensual its not justifiable. But we draw a line for girls below 16. Whatever the guys age is there can be no sex with the girl. We had anticipated that the guy as a “superior being” and need to protect the underage “innocent” girl. But I think we’ve never anticipated that the values and mores change to the fact that both teenager can have consensual sex. Thus if both are 16 and there’s no coercion why should we assume the boy is more mature than his girlfriend that we need to protect the girls?

      That’s why there’s a rethink on this law and the introduction of Romeo and Juliet laws.

      I think it makes sense. I can understand raus. His is not much different from other cases in other countries involving teenage consensual sex.

      But we need to have a more sophisticated law to address our values. We need to tell our kids there’s no sex at all and this is an offence to both girl and boy when it’s consensual. (if use force we use existing rape provisions) And in this consensual sex case we need sentencing to remedy the value and not make them worse by sending them to jail. They’ll get worse.

      My personal thinking is that 13 is too young to decide. But I won’t be surprised nowadays we get exposed and mature much earlier than we did last time. If the facts state that the girl knows want and still have no complain about it, I may like raus consider these factors in sentencing. Something is not right to punish one party if both want it and still do. And both have the same maturity level( like similar age). We should punish both under a new law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s