A review of all Malaysian laws governing homosexual behaviour- Chapter 1
How many of us know our legal rights?
How many of us realize that " love" and " passion" that we have for another man will eventually lead us to criminal offences in the eyes of the law?
Yes, you are free to tell me -as a friend of yours , you do not know or realise that. But, in our legal system, our courts will not allow you to say so. Believe me or not,"Ignorant of law" can never be a good defence in our legal system. You are expected to know the laws, all of them.
This article is the first in a series of articles that I intend to publish for the benefit of all of us,in Malaysia.
CHAPTER 1: CRIMINAL LAW
The Penal Code, is the Act of Parliament that spells out our substantive criminal law. The important provisions in the Penal Code that you should know are Sections 377A, 377B and 377D. Those provisions are reproduced here with some brief explanations :
“ Section 377A. Carnal intercourse against the order of nature
Any person who has sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature.Explanation--Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section. “
“Section 377B. Punishment for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature
Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.”
The rationale behind the above provisions was originally based on English criminal law which sought to prohibit the act of sodomy.
Points to note:
1. The term "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" between individuals has been interpreted to include anal sex and fellatio, or commonly known as oral sex .
2. The issues of “location” and “age” are not addressed in the provisions. From legal precedent, two consenting adults performing anal or oral sex in private does not
constitute a defence.
3. The maximum sentence for conviction is twenty years' imprisonment with whipping. Imprisonment is mandatory.
4. Some of the Malaysian cases related to these sections are as follows:
Case Name: Kesavan a/l Senderan v Public Prosecutor
Year: 1998
Acts involved: Fellatio, anal
Sentence: 7 years' imprisonment, no whipping because over 50 years of age
Case Name: Public Prosecutor v Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim & Anor
Year: 2001
Acts involved: anal
Sentence: Dato' Seri Anwar -9 years' imprisonment
Sukma-six years' imprisonment and 2 strokes on the first charge and 6 years imprisonment and 2 strokes on the second charge. The sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently
(Note:Both sentences were set aside by Federal Court in 2004)
Section 377D of the Penal Code reads:
“Section 377D. Outrages on decency
Any person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of, any act of gross indecency with another person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.”
Section 377D is to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts between men.' Gross Indecency' is a broad term. The term is yet to be discussed in our courts, however it may include mutual masturbation, genital contact, or even lewd behaviour without direct physical contact. Similar to section 377A , performing such acts by two consenting adults in private does not constitute a defence. the maximum sentence for conviction is two years imprisonment . Imprisonment is mandatory
The most recent Malaysian case related to this section is as follows:
Case Name:Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v Pendakwa Raya
Year:1999
Acts: anal
Sentence:6 months' imprisonment
Now, take note of this: Homosexual is NOT illegal in Malaysia BUT the homosexual acts, which considered “against the order of nature” by Sections 377A,B and D of our Penal Code, are.
21 Comments:
哇 。 。 看 的 到 你 這 裡 越 來 越 多 人 探 訪 嘍 ﹗ 你 這 個 post 很 好 。 。 可 是 大 多 數 的 大 馬 同 志 難 道 不 知 道 這 些 行 為 是 犯 法 的 嗎 ﹖
皓全
謝謝。大多數大馬的同志知道Sections377A 和 377B 的存在﹐但不完全曉得它的嚴重性﹐比如兩個相愛的成年男子躲在自己家裡做愛﹐在 Sections 377A 和 377B的眼裡也是犯罰的。法律不允許我們引用privacy成為 defence這一點他們可能不知道 。同時大多數大馬的同志不知道Section377D的存在﹐更不曉得它同時可以包括 mutual masturbation, genital contact, 甚至 lewd behaviour without direct physical contact 等這些輕微行為。所以我刻意把原文方在這裡讓大馬的同詳讀。
在聊法律噢?很复杂咧~
interesting :)
but do you know of any Malaysian citizen who's been convicted under this law?
滑翔翼
你覺得這一篇很复杂啊﹐那我失敗了﹐我的用意是想把法律簡單化﹐看樣子我還須要努力。
BravingKL
Yes, I do. In 1997, Kesavan a/l Senderan was charged under Section 377A . He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment by the Sessions Court of Shah Alam. Since he was 50 years old at the time of sentencing, no sentence of caning was imposed. He then appealed to the High Court in 1998,his sentence was reduced to 7 years imprisonment. In 2001, our former Deputy Prime MinisterAnnuar Ibrahim and Sukma,the god brother of Annuar were both charged under Section 337A, Annuar was convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, whereas Sukmawas was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and two strokes. Both of them appealed to the Federal Court, in 2004, the appeal was allowed, sentence was set aside.
In 1998, Sukma, a Malaysian Permananet Resident was charged under Section 377D, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment. His appeal at High Court was dismissed.
自由,它不曾出现,
法律,它颠倒是非,
人权,它何时平等?
这里,是马来西亚。
動物園的規矩不准喂動物吃東西 ...
工作的規矩不准遲到 ...
家裡的規矩就是不准碎碎唸 ...
到處都是被規矩綁手綁腳,
如果人家要幹嗎嘛給人家幹囉,
反正幹久了他們就會累嘛。
現在連同志做愛做的事也要限制,
唉~ 越來越沒有自由了。
引述:大马每天都有7个人染上爱滋病,而其中3人就是同性恋者。(以比例对算已经很多了)这为什么上阵子政府狂扫黄,同性恋网站更直接提供爱滋病查询热线,提高性知识。很多朋友依然不晓得避孕套的重要性吗?虽然我也知晓没“避孕”的必要。但,生命是可贵的!
您所提到的法律,大致上都与性有关。
{引述:
自由,它不曾出现,
法律,它颠倒是非,
人权,它何时平等?
这里,是马来西亚。}
人权,自由和法律这档事我倒觉得大马政府处理得很不错,虽然很多地方都需要改善。在我们没有蓝绿兵打内战、没人开枪射总统、没有政治人物在电视上扯头发。
*将心比心,如果没有法律警惕,没有自由限制,这会是个怎样的国家?*
太纵容,只会出现反效果。很多事情,需要多方面的思考。
哥哥们,给未来的小孩一个好榜样噢~
滑翔翼
Thanks for your comments.
I obtained the following latest statistic on HIV/AIDS cases from the United Nation Development Programme (UNDP)’s website:
“In the two decades since the first HIV/AIDS case was reported in Malaysia, the number of new cases has risen exponentially. By the end of 2004, roughly 64,000 Malaysians were reported as infected with HIV, of whom some 9,400 had developed AIDS. The majority of reported AIDS cases and HIV infections contracted were through injecting drug use. In 2003 some three-quarters of the total reported cases of HIV/AIDS comprised Injecting Drug Users. Another 12 per cent were categorized under heterosexual activity and just 1 per cent under homosexual or bisexual behaviour.”
Source: http://www.youandaids.org/Asia%20Pacific%20at%20a%20Glance/Malaysia/index.asp
但我们唯一不能否认的是,托网际网络的福,现在年轻人性交年龄越来越年轻化了。
嗯,咱们好像离题了咧?干嘛突然谈爱滋病?
这里就快变教堂了~
如果有兴趣了解更多的朋友,以下这网站不错的说~
http://www.ptfmalaysia.org/
Legal savvy for gay impunity - How to protect yourselves in the face of the Law?
http://www.ptfmalaysia.org/msm_main.htm
什么是IDU和heterosexual啊?这些染病满多的。而且“No information”的也蛮多的噢~
滑翔翼
Injecting Drug Users 是指針筒吸毒者
Heterosexual 是 homosexual的反義詞﹐也就是指異性戀
”干嘛突然谈爱滋病?”well, because I have doubt of your statistic on HIV/ADIS carriers . With due respect, my understanding is, we are only 1% of the statistic, not 3 out of 7, and the passage that I quoted supports my view.
And to legolas and Ooby, thanks for dropping by.
印象中,在這幾條下遭檢控的個案並不是那麼少。
我記得在1990年中期在檳城也發生過一宗案件,一名錫克裔的法官在汽車為另一名男子口交而遭控上庭,案情接下來如何,我也不清楚。
不過這幾項條文也通用在一對男女身上吧!不少聳人聽聞的奸殺案的被告,也遭一攬子地被上違反性行為的罪名。
至于1998年那場石破天驚的案例,看來是政治因素凌駕一切,然而其中一個當事人上訴後高庭判決已遭推翻,那麼這宗判例是否還有參考功用?
忘了補充,我覺得你在簡化和闡述這些與我們「貼身」條文時做得很清楚,我並不會覺得複雜。
換言之,你還未失敗。:)
heZt
謝謝。我還想把其他有關我們的法律在這陸續登刊﹐請多給意見。
對﹐還有很多人被提控。但許多案件在Session Court就了案了﹐故很少被MLJ, CLJ等法律Journal記錄下來。這一點是我們的遺憾。
關於錫克裔律師一案﹐若沒記錯﹐由于控方沒辦法proof beyond reasonable doubt, 故該律師被判無罪。
是的﹐這幾項條文也通用在男女身上。因為條文指明 “any person..
另﹐dismiss並非推翻﹐而是被拒絕﹐也就是說sukma在高庭上訴失敗。對不起我沒把法律字眼解釋清楚﹐讓你混淆了請見諒。
PT Foundation 是一个不错的非政府机构。它们为大马的同志社群做了很多的贡献,举办了很多活动,还有一些聚会或研讨会。可以通过健康的管道结交新朋友,也可以学到新知识。
大家都很夠力利害啊,
為了自己的自由而焚身討論。
哎~原来“性”福也是那么艰难的事情。lawboycool兄~您越来越红咯~加油加油噢!
嗯~原来PTF是非政府机构的啊?里面工作的员工有薪水的吗?
lawboycool兄,该发个新帖了~这里快要容不下咯~
要補充的是安華案。安華義弟雖在高庭的上訴被駁回,但在2004年時,他和安華已在聯邦法院上訴得直而無罪釋放,這是否意味著高庭的判決是有誤的?日後法庭需要審判類似的案件時,是否會去參照這些有瑕疵的判決?
你說錫克裔律師(我一直以為是法官)的案件是因無法proof beyond reasonable doubt,應該是指「無法舉證合理的懷疑」?:) (我非行內人,請多多指教)。
雖然很多案件在地庭審結,但很多時候都因檢控不力,以致無法入罪。
也希望可以多讀到你接下來的大作。現在在大馬連接吻都會被控了,更何況是任何形式的「貼身接觸」?
legolas
多說說PT Foundation吧 ﹐我想必有人想要參與而不知其管道
ooby
你也參與吧
滑翔翼
新帖啊﹐快了
heZt
高庭一案控方引用section 377D, 而聯邦法院一案控方則引用Section 377A﹐兩案因此有異。但由于兩案有太多相似與相關之處﹐日後法庭若需要審判有關 section 377D的案件時﹐我們固然希望法庭不以sukma一案為准繩
你對beyond reasonable doubt的了解是正確的
想要了解更多关于PTF的资讯,最直接的方法就是去它的网站:
http://www.ptfmalaysia.org/
地址(靠近PWTC):
7C-1, 1st Floor, Jalan Ipoh Kechil,
off Jalan Raja Laut,
50350 Kuala Lumpur.
有兴趣的人,可以加入它们做义工,或者只是纯粹参加它们的活动,包括每个星期天下午三点的研讨会(sunday session),讨论一些热门话题,或是其他新资讯。
I think it is REALLY sad to read such things like this! SOmetimes, I wish, I would just be in Thailand, and NOT Malaysia.... urrrghhhhhh
Post a Comment
<< Home