Wednesday, August 26, 2009


I couldn’t help it but wonder – how did she get enticed? I mean, literally she would have been lured, tempt or charmed….and it wasn’t mentioned that any ‘magic’ or ‘black magic’ was used. So how did this happen?

A smart and credible lady, well known TV personality and she gets enticed?

Anyway, that’s what her husband claims and is suing a businessman for it. He is being prosecuted under Section 498 of the Penal Code for ‘enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman’.

I read with interest that in our law, ‘protects’ women. In this case, if a man (single) tries to entice a married woman, it is an offence against the man (sorry I can’t remember the codes, those I got off The Malay Mail). However, if a woman (single) entices a married man, neither the man nor this woman is in the wrong. Now you see why I placed the ‘quotion’ marks on the word protect?

I quote….this is because in the olden days, women are so called slaves (or under control) of the man. And as such, the man has rightful ‘ownership’ of his wife. Therefore he can charge another person for enticing.
But I guess this doesn’t apply to the modern world. If it did, I think its only fair that it should work both ways. How come if woman entices married man (which is quite a norm nowadays) is not wrong? I’m not against the female gender but I’ve seen too many to feel and think that women are not as innocent as they want to be treated or appear to be. But that being said, it only works if the two hands clap, right? In any case, what about if the ‘enticer’ is the party who is married? Now, what should it be?

1 comment:

Fong said...

is there such rule? huhu, macam kenal jer..