For sure, I’m not going to discuss what “Section 498 Penal Code” as I not interested in Law. I just want to touch a few minor lines in the webpage:
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/11439-rare-message-daphne%E2%80%99s-case
Already, Section 498 has come under sharp focus. At the start of the trial last week, Puspha Ratnam, who with other lawyers, is holding a watching brief for Daphne had at the start of the case said she would make a formal application to challenge the summons and the constitutionality of Section 498.
“It is archaic and no longer has a place in society. It is a total affront to women to suggest that we can be so easily enticed and so stupid enough to be enticed,” she said.
…..
“The law needs to be reviewed because presently having sex with a married woman is not illegal but enticing her away from her husband is,” said lawyer Kamariah Zainol.
LOL…..stupid enough? Is conducting adultary A Brilliant Mind? That’s why we need such an archaic law to “EDUCATE” people.
You married but not sleeping with someone you married to, and you call that Brilliant? Why don’t when people rape you because they thought you intelligent?
I’m not sure what does Daphne Iking is up to. But if she feel not happy with her husband, she should divorce him before she wanted to be with a new guy. Did she sex with the new guy? Well, that is not my interest and I not going to guess or discuss either. Not my problem.
Ok, so there is a law against enticing other’s wife, but there is no law saying you can’t sex with a married woman.
But I do understand there’s an unspoken and common handling way in both head hunters and triads for dealing with such issue. Don’t ask me how it could be done. I just assume from my imagination.
more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091209/ap_on_re_as/as_malaysia_seduction_charge
http://www.malaysiainsurance.info/?p=1263
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/11439-rare-message-daphne%E2%80%99s-case
