Let’s educate our lawmakers on meaning of ‘statutory rape’

Shabudin: ‘Statutory rape’ is different from ‘rape’

Telestai!: Tasik Gelugor MP Shabudin Yahaya, rape is rape, statutory or otherwise. Statutory rape is when the victim is too young or naive to say no to sexual intercourse.

Still, it is rape and no one, especially an ex-judge, should down play the criminality of a statutory rape.

Marriage is an easy way out for the perpetrator who gets away without so much of a rap on the knuckle, while the victim suffers her whole life – mostly in silence.

For the sake of your future generations, Shabudin, please do the right thing – punish the rapist and not the victim.

Léon Moch: The issue of statutory rape is the victim’s competence to give consent.

The law deems children under 16 to be unable to give consent, hence the provision on statutory rape, even if the sexual intercourse was seemingly consensual as painted by the MP here.

The incompetence to give consent makes statutory rape the same as rape.

Anonymous 2460391489930458: Statutory rape regards the victim to be simply too immature to make certain “adult” decisions, like who they should have sex with, or marry.

It is not okay to presume that the underaged girl knows what she’s doing, like who she should marry.

Clever Voter: How on earth did this narrow-minded man get to be an member of parliament? He sounds like a pervert and is disrespectful to women.

Despite of his insistence that he was taken out of context, his attitudes leave much to be desired. A crime is a crime.

Wira: Shabudin, you have not been quoted out of context about the nine-year-old girl. You used puberty as a yardstick on whether a person is ready for marriage, regardless whether she has the mental maturity to do so.

MinahBulat: Shabudin is trying to differentiate rape and statutory rape and from his explanation, he gave the example of the 20-year-old boy and the 15-year-old girl.

Rape is having sexual intercourse without the consent of the girl. Statutory rape came about because an underage girl is incapable of giving her consent.

Whatshappening: “‘The rapist might be a friend (or) a boyfriend whom the (victim) loves, and the boyfriend loves her too,’ said Shabudin.”

If they are in love, then it’s ‘khalwat’, isn’t it?

Vgeorgemy: Shabudin now appears to approve of sex outside the marriage, which is forbidden under any religious teaching, including Islam.

We don’t need this type of lawmakers who seemingly do not have any moral values.

Did media spin Shabudin’s remarks on rape, child marriage?

RR: How could this MP mention such views in supporting child marriage, statutory rape and child marriage in order to avert social problems, etc, and now say it is all media spin?

Nonplussedp: It seems Shabudin has never once thought of the rape victim who is a minor as a child, who is still immature in her thinking even if her physical body has developed beyond her years.

Everything is physical to these characters. It is very scary to think that they are lawmakers sitting in Parliament.

If a law is wrong, don’t try to justify it.

Kangkung: What’s the use of this Fact Check? Umno ministers are professional spinners. They will say one thing and then claim to have been misunderstood.

Shunyata: Thanks, Zikri Kamarulzaman. In today’s time and place, you really can’t make statements like this and then claim you are misquoted.

Vijay47: This entire controversy orbits around allegations that Shabudin said, essentially:

a) That upon attaining puberty, a girl reaches maturity and is ready for marriage, both physically and spiritually.

b) That the bodies of some 12- or 15-year-old girls look as though they were 18.

c) That rape will be set right should the rapist marry his victim.

Of the three alleged statements, the most damning one was the third. Based on the Hansard extracts here, Shabudin did indeed refer to young girls’ bodies, perhaps too repeatedly, and he also advanced his theory of the union of puberty and maturity.

One was distasteful, the other ill-advised. But in all fairness to him, he did not say that marriage would solve the problem.

On the contrary, he emphasised that rape was a crime but said, almost in passing, that the rapist marrying the victim was not barred by marriage laws.

Yes, the media has sensationalised it. And I am one of those who took out the long knives. I am sorry.

Not Convinced: This is what Shabudin said, according to the Hansard –

“Whether he committed ‘zina’ or he committed rape, what is most important is that he goes through a process of realisation. A process of repenting. Those who commit ‘zina’, or rape, the offence is still a criminal offence. But they have a chance.

“Maybe with the marriage, they can go through a better life that is healthier and better. And the wife who was raped, maybe if she can get married she won’t have to go through a bleak future.

“At least she has a husband, someone can be her husband at the point of time. This is a remedy to social problems that occur in our society.”

Kononymous: Uh, oh. Will the Hansardbe placed under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) soon?

Newday: Well, it looks like the Hansardhas taken him out of context, too.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.