A different perspective on sex with a minor

Social media is abuzz about the story of a national ten-pin bowler who had his sentence of being “bound over” on good behaviour for 5 years restored by the Court of Appeal here.

The facts

It would appear that the bowler, when aged about 18 or 19, had consensual sex with a girl who was then aged 13 years and 4 months. After the girl’s father gave evidence, the bowler changed his plea to one of guilty and after what seems to have been an impassioned plea in mitigation, the bowler was sentenced to being bound over. It was reported in Harian Metro as follows:-

Semalam ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan hari pertama kes itu, namun selepas saksi pendakwaan pertama iaitu bapa mangsa memberi keterangan, tertuduh melalui peguam bela Azrul Zulkifli Stork memberitahu mahkamah dia mahu menukar pengakuannya.

Abu Bakar dalam penghakimannya turut meneliti semua fakta kes yang dikemukakan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Ifa Sirrhu Samsudin serta rayuan peguam.

Mengikut pertuduhan, Nor Afizal didakwa merogol gadis berkenaan yang ketika kejadian berusia 13 tahun empat bulan antara jam 12.30 pagi hingga 5 pagi, di bilik bernombor 225, tingkat dua, Hotel Kings, Ayer Keroh pada 5 Julai 2010.

Tertuduh didakwa mengikut Seksyen 376 Kanun Keseksaan jika disabitkan boleh dipenjara sehingga 20 tahun dan dikenakan sebatan.

Sementara itu, Azrul merayu mahkamah menggunakan budi bicara peruntukan Seksyen 294 Kanun Acara Jenayah kerana tertuduh adalah pesalah muda yang perlu diberi peluang selain dia masih atlet dan itu adalah kesalahan pertamanya.

Beliau juga menyatakan tertuduh adalah atlet yang mengharumkan nama negara dan negeri serta menanggung keluarga kerana ibu bapanya tidak bekerja.

Katanya, kepentingan awam juga membawa maksud tertuduh diberi peluang kerana mempunyai masa depannya cerah selain pertuduhan itu adalah rogol bawah umur dan tiada unsur paksaan.

Ifa bagaimanapun meminta mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman berat ke atas tertuduh sebagai pengajaran atas perbezaaan usianya 19 tahun manakala mangsa pula 13, ketika kejadian.

Katanya, sebagai atlet, kesalahan dilakukan tertuduh turut mencemarkan imej negara dan negeri.

The Prosecution appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was too lenient. Apparently, the Melaka High Court imposed a 5 year sentence. That sentence was overturned by the Court of Appeal earlier this week, and the order that the bowler be bound over by the Sessions Court was restored. Since this matter started in the Sessions Court, no further appeal can be made.

(The New Straits Times reports that the bowler’s counsel said the bowler was actually 18 at the time of the offence, not 19. The Sun and the Malaysian Insider also report the story.)

There is now an uproar over this. A few points, however, should be noted.

Rape and statutory rape

What the bowler did was undoubtedly “rape”, as defined in what is now section 375(g) of the Penal Code.

A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the following descriptions…

(g) with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

It’s called “statutory rape”, because it does not matter if the woman consented or not. Traditionally, rape means forcing a person to have sex.

But note that the girl was 13 years and 4 months old at the time (as seen from the Harian Metro article) whilst the boy was 18 or 19, not 21 as Charles Santiago – and many others I am sure – seem to think. (He was 21 when the Court of Appeal heard the matter. So the girl is now 15 or 16).

UPDATED: Charles Santiago has corrected his opinion piece after the publication of this article.

So, effectively, what this case is all about is a Form 6 boy who had sex with a Form 1 girl. The law says he is a rapist. Perhaps he was a smooth talker, or perhaps the girl looked much older and they were experimenting. I don’t know. It was his first offence, as far as we know, and it looks as if it was completely consensual (though, of course, one could argue that the girl’s consent is of little value given her tender age).

Young Man’s Defence

The law in Malaysia does not allow any leeway even when the age difference between the offender and the victim in a statutory rape case is small. However, many jurisdictions have seen the injustice in this, and their laws reconize that there is a difference in kind in the nature of the offence when an older man has sex with a young girl, and when two young people are experimenting. So, for example, in England, section 6(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 provides that

(3)  A man is not guilty of an offence under this section because he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen, if he is under the age of twenty-four and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes her to be of the age of sixteen or over and has reasonable cause for the belief.

This was called the “young man’s defence”. The law in England has been amended, but it would appear not yet in force. This defence will soon be open to any man, so long as he reasonably believed that the woman was over the age of 16. See section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (not yet in force). Significantly, the burden remains with the prosecution to prove that the man could not have reasonably believed that the girl was over 16, and not for the accused to prove this. (For some historical background, and the impetus for this legislative change, see Regina v K [2001] UKHL 41.)

In England, the Crown Prosecution Service summarizes their guidelines on when prosecutors should prosecute offences such as this by stating that “a man who is considerably older that the girl is likely to be prosecuted, especially if he owed her a duty of care; whereas it may not be necessary to prosecute a young man with whom the girl has been having a consensual relationship.”

The young man’s defence is not available in Malaysia, nor is there a defence to a man who reasonably believes that the person he is having sex with is a woman aged over 16. As long as the victim is under 16, it is an offence, presumably even if the “rapist” is also under 16.

Get some perspective before condemning

So, the bowler has still been convicted of an offence. The only thing is that his sentence has been restored to the sentence originally imposed on him. He has not been sent to jail for 5 years for what some may call a youthful indiscretion.

From the newspaper reports, we cannot know whether or not this man is a sexual predator. We do know that he is very young, and possibly has a bright future. We don’t know whether he believed the girl was older than she was, and whether that belief was reasonable. We do know that jail time would certainly have destroyed his life, job prospects and bowling career. All because he had consensual sex with a Form 1 girl when he was in Form 6.

Bear all this in mind before you go and condemn the Court of Appeal judgment restoring the original sentence.

LB: This has not been the first time Shanmuga K has embroiled himself in an attack on women’s groups. Read his Oy! Women! Wake Up and Smell the Coffee on what is now section 375(f) of the Penal Code [at that time, a proposed section 375(g)].

UPDATE: Read Also:

Shanmuga K sometimes sees a purple banana emerging in his sub-conscious. An article seems to then be magically written. He is @shanmuga_k on Twitter. When he does not see those purple bananas, he practices...

48 replies on “Should this “rapist” really go to jail?”

  1. just follow najib's islamic values. excuse the bowler!. muhammad was not charged when he screw a 9 year old girl.
    lim ge went to jail instead when tamby screw a 12 year old girl.

  2. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 actually came into force in 2004, so the young man's defence has been abolished. Under s. 5 of the Act, sex with a child under 13 is rape in any circumstance; sexual activity with a child under 16 is an offence under s. 9 but only if the defendant is over 18 AND he/she did not reasonably believe the victim to be over 16. If the defendant is under 18 OR he/she reasonably believed the victim to be over 16, then no offence is committed.

  3. [Fck the Judge]
    The Judge has set a very bad example telling all of us or future court case that "Anyone who seem having a bright future can have a consensual rape with a under age girl" . I thought this law main reason for existence is to protect young girl, but it turn out that the Judge playing as a Fortune Teller protecting the young boy instead. Then better amend the section 375(g) of the Penal Code to becomes:

    A man who is WITHOUT BRIGHT FUTURE is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the following descriptions…

    (g) with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

    [Fck the System]
    It is not about PUNISHMENT , it is about PREVENTIVE MEASURE for the future. I wish all secondary school children started as early as first day at school should be educated very clear about this law and this law must be enforced without using any crystal ball. As Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers." So, one can start to punish either the student or teacher or headmaster or Minister of Education or even the Prime Minister depending at which level the education/instructions are being properly passed down. If the Young Boy were not told about the existence of this law, how the hell he is aware of it and its seriousness ?

  4. It is sad that most posts talk about the boy and has not pay attention to the position of the girl. At that tender age, she is not legally able to give consent for she may not be aware of the consequences of her action, while the older boy will have to take more responsibility. Ignorance of the law is no defense. The law is clear on this and it is not the judge's job to "update" the law. The law must be seen to be just and judging from the responses from the public, it is clearly felt that justice has not been done.

  5. A 13 year old CHILD is incapable of consent. An 18/19 year old knows it's against the law to have sex with someone who is underage, and I don't care about the age gap. It's a strict liability crime, which means he didn't even have to know about her age. Regardless, he deserves jail time AND the stigma associated with the term rape. He may not have forced her, but he is older and she is incapable of consent. Stop painting the offender as the victim, as he most certainly IS NOT.

  6. Stop moralising and punishing CONSENSUAL sex!! Teens experiment, it's normal thing, why punish and why punish only the guy? Isn't the girl equally "guilty"? If punish teen for experiment with sex, then the jails will full of teen. And what happen after jail? They have met real criminals in jail and not continued in schooling. They leave jail, can't get job, so they do real crime to survive. Crime bad already!

  7. she's not even 'barely legal' at the point of the 'consensual sex' happened.. the only 'legal' thing she could do at that age was probably open her own bank account with no guardian's name. and she is still a minor even after 3 years has passed. a minor then, and still a minor now, and all the judges cared about is 'the sex was consensual' and 'he has a bright future'.. i don't understand how the law works. yes to jail for non-professionals who had consensual sex with almost/barely legal individuals but no for national bowler who raped a child then who is still a child now..

  8. Although the convicted's lawyers had every right to throw the kitchen sink at this case, the judge should had never considered the "national athlete/bright future" status of the convicted in his decision. Allowing his decision to be influenced by such a vague factor mocks what it means to be a judge. However, if the judge has the ability to confirm the convicted's future before making his decision, I sincerely apologise for this post and humbly ask that he emails me with next week's 4D results.

  9. Why 5 years when in this case: CRIMINAL CASE NO.: 62-09-2009 where the man is 44 & the girl is 14, the sentence is 3 years……

  10. Malaysians as always came up with creative reasons to cover their impotency and unwillingness to call a spade as a spade. This is MALAYSIA BOLEH !!! As noted by the author, the so called young man defence though passed, yet to be brought into effect. This is the critical thinking of the westerners. The law may be enforced and may not. Anyway the question here is about the issue of consistency in guidelines in sentencing and the reasons gave by the court of appeal in restoring the session court decision. It seems the judges sat in the panel were not bothered with the aftermath. The court of appeal sits as final court of appeal in matters started in session court. A precedent has been laid down for futures similar cases whereby the irrelevant factors such as "bright future", a man with extraordinary capabilities" etc which are completely subjective thinking can be used by the judges of first instance in letting go the culprit. It looks like the normal mitigating factor such "accused is the sole breadwinner for the family, supporting his parents , siblings and considered to be a filial son" had been given statutory recognition by this decision. And floodgate for appeal against sentences has just been opened by this court. I am not surprised because the judge who chaired the panel was a back door judge who was elevated purely through recommendation and incapability of ruling in controversial cases. Heck just see how nay worthy judgments has been delivered by this judge.

  11. This guy was convicted by court of law of statutory rape. He should be sentenced to the letter of the law. We cannot be GOD here because we open a can of worms as to who is considered to have a bright future or not. I think if Albert Einstein was standing in front of the judge, he would not be given that leniency.

    The judge should concern himself with the fact that did the statutory rape take place and if it did, he should go with the sentence stipulated in that section of law. If he felt that Noor Afizal had a bright future, then go with the minimum sentence allowed within the section of law, not start a new one.

    In my opinion, the judge screwed up. Period! All focus of the judge was on the bowler n there was none even for the poor victim. The victim was sentenced by the judge to a lifetime of shame n ridicule b'cause he accepted that she gave her consent irregardless whether she was a minor n incapable of making a sound, valid decision. The judge erred in his judgement when the letter of the law tells him otherwise. Shame on the judge n judiciary! This decision reflects greatly on the standing of the judiciary in Malaysia.

    1. Binding over is provided under the law btw, it is nothing new, it is codified in the penal code…

  12. A good exposition of the law but just a thought please.

    Since he pleaded guilty, shouldn't any analysis on this case be focussed on whether the sentence is "manifestly inadequate" or "manifestly excessive"? Are there precedents of statutory rape cases in which an accused person (well in this case, an accused who had pleaded guilty) was bounded-over?

  13. Thank you for your comments. There is no 5 year minimum sentence for statutory rape where the girl is under 16 but consented. The minimum is where the girl under 16 did not consent, or where the girl was under 12.

    I have no daughter. If I did, I would naturally want her to respect her body and her sexuality, and I certainly would be upset if she was having sex at that tender age.

    Having said that, I wonder why the boy is punished but not the girl?

    Someone mentioned England. Both the old and new law are hyperlinked in my article. The CPS guidelines do not say its only under 13, but different regimes apply to those under 13 and those under 16.

    I must stress that I consider having sex with minors abhorrent. I am not "advocating" for the man. But I consider 5 years jail time for a crime such as this totally and uttely disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, given what we have seen from the news reports.

    I would guess that none of you have actually read the prosecution statements and heard the defence's plea in mitigation. You rely totally on the news reports, and the sensationalist headlines.

    The "bright future" may or may not have been the central plank of the Court's decision, but the guilty plea, the first time offence, the relative ages of the offender and victim and the impact imprisonment would have on this young offender are all valid criteria to be taken into when sentencing someone for a crime such as this.

    The article aims to get you thinking, and I am glad that it has – for some of you, at least.

    1. You are, in fact, advocating for the man. Y

      ou asked why the girl is not being punished? Because a victim cannot be punished with the same law that seeks to protect his/her particular class (as in: the statutory rape law cannot be used to punish victims of statutory rape, which are children of a certain age).

      She is not being punished because she is the VICTIM.

  14. There is a reason it's called STATUTORY RAPE. It is prohibited by LAW. If teens having sex with teens is ok, then amend the Penal Code or lower the age for consensual intercourse to 14 like some countries.

    While 5 years may seem harsh for something that was consensual, aren't we already seeing way too many cases of baby dumping? Do we want to encourage further moral decay in our society? It is because of the relaxation of such morality that the world's youngest grandfather is a 29 year old. And you guessed it, he's from Britain!

  15. Totally agree with KOK Yoon Lee. It's a huge disgrace to our judiciary system, the law says so and it's very obvious that there is no leeway given to the judges, yet our court accepted the public policy argument merely because perpetrator is a national athlete. If you think the law is not suitable, urge the legislator to amend the law to give discretion to the judges in making his decision in this kind of cases.

  16. You know what, I would have bought the argument stated in the article if said accused did not wrote his obnoxious tweet of (translated): "yes, what to do. The ones who are calling names and saying bad things are malays… Malays wanting to bring down other Malays, that's why"

    1. Okay, I just lost any sympathy for the guy. Pulling the race card and going "we *insert race* should stand together! Even though I am guilty" is just utter BS and shows his character..

  17. Assuming the dude is a Muslim, there is still hope. He might (unless already) be prosecuted for a syariah offence. Someone, anyone, please make a report to JAKIM or alert the sleepy heads in the syariah prosecution dept. At the very least, the dude is guilty of maksiat. Zina more like it. Syariah FTW (for the world).

  18. Firstly, I disagree with the comment

    “statutory rape where it is consensual, is not a punishment because there was harm done on the girl. It is a punishment to enforce the morals of society, despite that no harm may be done on the girl”

    It is not a punishment to enforce the morals of society; it is to protect minors, as they are deemed too young to be capable of making their own decisions. A 13-year old child is deemed not capable of making rational decisions, that’s why minors are not allowed to make a lot of decisions that affect themselves. Some may argue that there are many adults who are also incapable of making rational decisions. Perhaps that’s why Charles Dickens wrote something about the law being an ass.

    Given the facts of the case, the young man is guilty of the charge of statutory rape. We should apply the law uniformly across the board. This young man’s should serve the mandatory 5 year jail sentence; after all, this is what the voters of Malaysia wanted as evidenced by the mandate to the MPs who legislated this law. It is not the job of judges to make the law, that is the job of the legislators. As I understand it, Judges are duty bound to follow what has been legislated. If the law is “bad”, then it is the job of the legislators to change it. So far, I haven’t read of anyone who has written to their MP to have this law amended, have you? So, can we conclude that this is what the voters of Malaysia want?

    If Malaysian want to distinguish between minors who are “experimenting” or minors being taken advantage of by predators, then they should write to their MP or vote for MPs who promises to change the law. Alternatively, they could also write to their MP to remove the mandatory 5 year jail term so that the sentencing Judge be given the discretion. Again, I haven’t read of anyone who has written to their MP to have this removed.

    Perhaps the Prosecutors could appeal this case so that the Federal Court could ensure that the Law is followed? After all, our PM can always make a recommendation to the Agung grant this young man a royal pardon?

    I must admit that I have no legal training and is really a loyar burok. BTW, my sympathies are with all these young people who have to pay for their youthful indiscretions.

    1. "It is not a punishment to enforce the morals of society; it is to protect minors, as they are deemed too young to be capable of making their own decisions. A 13-year old child is deemed not capable of making rational decisions, that's why minors are not allowed to make a lot of decisions that affect themselves. Some may argue that there are many adults who are also incapable of making rational decisions. Perhaps that's why Charles Dickens wrote something about the law being an ass."

      You say it's not punishment to enforce the morals of society but then you go on about what society deems to be people capable of making rational decisions. You yourself are aware that some people who are considered adults may not even have the ability to make rational decisions yet they are still considered adults by society. For all we know this 13 year old girl may be wise beyond her years and is aware of the consequences of her actions. Society doesn't even try to determine that. They still punish.

      Why the author says this is a law to protect society's morals is because the victim isn't the one making a complaint. Society is making a complaint on behalf of the victim even if the victim doesn't want to.

  19. I think he deserves some jail time.. Minimal perhaps.. Just to drive home the message that even statutory rape is wrong. However I do agree that since he was 18 and not even old enough to vote at the time some leniency should be given. They could have been in love for all we know. We do stupid stuff when we're teenagers.

  20. Imho, I disagree with the outcome but yet I think that 5 years imprisonment as minimum punishment is too harsh because let's face it, everyone has a different sets of moral. Kids nowadays think differently from how it was like 10 or 20 years ago. Back then the society was more conservative as compared to the current one, where sex was not something that people would even talk about. I am not saying what the boy did was right, but being someone around his age I can see where this is coming from. It's not just our criminal law is outdated against the social norm, sex education in this country is very limited, whereas many of them have the access to Internet where there are no boundaries to what sort of information they may get.
    There is a saying that curiousity kills the cat, and I think this saying goes hand in had with azizul's situation. Perhaps he was just a curious kid back then, and who says that being 18 you should know better? Not if you were not exposed to such things before, not if there's no one there to point the right direction to you. Being a form 6 student, his mentality might still remain as a high school's student's , and really, many of our high school student have not really matured in the sense that they have not been exposed to the outside world yet. This makes him not much different from his then 13 years old girlfriend.

    I am not just saying this for the boy, but for all the other cases that have similar situation, that it is indeed too harsh to brand them as 'rapist' just because of a stupid mistake when they were young. Who never made mistake when they were young? Of course this is entirely different from murdering someone. Despite the fact that a minor has no legal capacity to consent, there was actual consent, it was not forced. If it was not by force, wouldn't it be too onerous that one has to pay the price of their future just for their stupidity when they were young? I would say that in this case, he is definitely not the only one who have made such mistake, but he is just too unlucky to get caught.

    Like what someone have mentioned earlier, would sentencing them for statutory rape deter such things from happening again or would it just force young couples to have sex secretly?

    Why not we think of a way to prevent such problems by going to the roots of the problems instead of just blaming the immaturity of youngsters nowadays?

  21. form 6 having sex with form 1. both also gatal. dulu pon aku pernah main dgn budak form 1 kt sekolah. only difference is , we didnt get caught. RAPE is too strong of a word.

  22. imo he is an adult and should be punished for his wrong doings. My main concern about this case is, if he can escape jail centence because he is young, bright and talented, then this will become a case study for future rape cases. ppl can escape rape cases by proving that they are "young, bright and talented".

    1. although I personally disagree with the sentencing….. but what you are saying is far from truth… that is why the sentencing is called "binding over". u put the wrongdoer in a position that he MUST ensure good behavior and a surety would be appointed to guarantee his good behavior…. This would be given, again, when there is possibility of future repetition of the crime

  23. Before everyone gets too emotional, it is very important to understand that statutory rape does not necessarily mean forcible rape. A minor could have factually consented but legally she is incapable of consenting.

    This is not a case where he had used threat or abused his position to have sexual intercourse with the girl. So equating it with forcible rape is incorrect. This guy here simply had sex with an underage girl.

    Furthermore, statutory rape where it is consensual, is not a punishment because there was harm done on the girl. It is a punishment to enforce the morals of society, despite that no harm may be done on the girl.

    Therefore the term "statutory rape" can be misleading. Perhaps it's time to change it to "sex with minor" where factually it is consensual.

    However, I do disagree with the sentencing by the Court of Appeal because it is inconsistent with previous cases of statutory rape. Other cases where the facts are that two young lovers did not know any better, madly in love, intending to get married to each other but had sex, the accused were punished with 5 years imprisonment (which is the statutory minimum for rape).

    Simply because this guy is the national bowler and has a bright future (purportedly), it does not make him any more special than the accused in the other cases. There must be consistency is sentencing.

    This case, more than anything, highlights the archaic, outdated criminal law that we have in Malaysia. The Sessions Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal is put in to a difficult position because they have to choose between not imprisoning him or imprisoning him for a statutory minimum of 5 years for statutory rape. It is either one extreme or the other.

    1. Edit: There is no minimum sentence for having sex with a girl under the age of 16 with her consent. Much apologies, the copy of Penal Code I have only incorporates amendments up till 2006.

      The Court of Appeal therefore did not have to choose between two extremes of binding him over and imprisonment of 5 years.

  24. a Form 6 guy should even be dating a Form 1 girl, let alone be having sex with her! Just WHY is this about the "poor guy" and not about the raped girl? I suppose it is OK for your 11 year old daughter to have sex with a 18 year old but not with a 25 year old, issit? Nobody is asking for the boy to be castrated, but a jail sentence (even if minimal) would drive home the point that our society (last time I checked we were Malaysians, not Englishmen like loyarburok seems to think he is) does not accept this.

    1. Indeed, Sex with minor is statutory rape, period. There's nothing more to it. Worry about his"bright future" instead of the girl's? This in itself reeks of patriarchy and misogyny in the system. I just can't accept this.

      1. I agree that he should get some jail time but I really don't get arguments about the victim's "bright future". Whether he goes to jail or not, it won't affect how her future is from now on. The girl itself supposedly said in court that the relationship was consensual meaning that she probably doesn't have the kind of trauma that a rape victim has of being violated.

        I agree that he should get some jail term because he took advantage of a minor but please don't use arguments that don't make sense to justify hate against this bowler.

        1. No trauma, but her name isn't that well-preserved anymore, no? Think about it, Malaysians knowing that she had sex at 13, ain't doing good to her reputation. "slut, whore" etc, those are stuff that's pretty prominent in our culture. I do hope that people actually care bout the victims instead of finding excuses.

          1. Do you see her name mentioned anywhere? No personal information about her except her age (which is pertinent to the case) has been released. This is to protect her from exactly the kind of mentality you're talking about.

            Even if he goes to jail, how does this change how society perceives her? The bowler should go to jail for 5 years because of her reputation?

            Finally, Malaysians calling victims 'slut' and 'whore' are exactly the kind of people who exacerbate problems like this. They have no respect for the victim and blame the victim instead. This mentality does more than anything to enforce the culture that rape is okay. In this particular case, people blaming the victim is not the fault of the bowler. It's our own society's belligerent imbeciles who do that. Why should he be punished for the fault of others?

  25. easier said than done… Imagine if a 19y.o. boy commits a murder because he is experimenting what it feels like to be a murderer whether or not the victim consents to it or not… Then do you let the boy go off with a fine only?…

  26. sure, now how would malaysia REALLY feel if this bowler became famous through winning a few medals in either SEA games or Olympic games, and the famous RAPIST winner tag came to haunt him later, maybe internationally, something like "u know the malaysian bowler who raped an underaged gal?"

  27. Impo, I think it is essential to put a higher burden on the older partner (look, sometimes older young girls boink even younger boys). Experimenting or no, the boy Azizul should've known better.

    Then again, due the absolute lack of sex education for young people in Malaysia, it is reasonable to say, he didn't know any better either.

    My stance tho is once you hit 18, you are an adult by law, and should be treated that way. That includes having sex with minors being an offence. That the boy has pleaded guilty to.

    In regards to the sentencing, looking at the media/social uproar over this case tho, the boy will carry that stigma with him for the rest of his life, and through his professional career as a bowler too.

    He isn't the only 18 year old who has had sex with the minor. The only difference is he got caught.

    My two cents.

Comments are closed.