The Malaysian Bar - In defence of the married woman?

Home

News

General Opinions/Comments

In defence of the married woman?

Monday, 14 December 2009 11:33am

Comment by Chan Kheng Hoe

OF LATE, many have criticised section 498 of the Penal Code which prohibits the enticement of a married woman. Criticisms by women’s groups have primarily centred around the perceived discriminatory effects of the law. Apparently, section 498 is based on the premise that women are chattels owned by their spouses, incapable of independent thought and action. The groups argue that the section fails to recognise a woman’s ability to manage her own marital affairs, despite having proven her capability in business and politics.

In this time and age, it would be foolhardy to oppose anything remotely sounding like women’s emancipation. Popularity and political correctness are the order of the day for us, the equality-minded and gender-sensitive generation. Furthermore, the arguments do sound logical and sensible. But are the arguments valid?

To understand the context, section 498 is within a section of the Penal Code dealing with offences relating to marriage. Although discussion has centred around the prohibition against enticement, the section is wider in scope. It also prohibits "taking" (by force) and "detaining" (without consent) the married woman. Surely there can be no objection to the punishment of a man who "takes" and "detains" a married woman for illicit intercourse.

The perpetrator in section 498 can only be a man. The law does not apply vice versa, namely a woman who entices a married man commits no offence. Contrary to assertions of women groups, this would seem discriminatory of men rather than of women.

But why govern only the conduct of men? The law itself is silent on its motives, hence each of us may draw our own conclusions. A person who perceives women to be "weak" may read section 498 and conclude that it seeks to protect women as the "weaker" sex. That perception would of course be objectionable.

I, however, perceive women not as the "weaker" sex, but as the more virtuous one. Hence, when I read section 498, I understand it to be simply recognising the virtue of women. Men, to my mind, are naturally more given to lust and violence, and hence the law seeks to regulate the conduct of men. A woman, on the other hand, is far more virtuous, hence there is no necessity to regulate her conduct. In fact, it would be unfair to prohibit women from enticing married men, for the simple fact that men are too easily enticed.

Far from treating women as chattels, section 498 respects a woman’s right to make an independent decision. Women may choose to be enticed. The law merely prohibits men from engaging in the active act of enticement. To entice means to attract, to arouse hope or desire, to lure. When the law recognises that women are capable of being enticed, it also recognises women to be capable of harbouring hopes and desires, dreams and ambitions. In other words, women are intelligent. Otherwise, the law would speak of "herding" women instead of "enticing" them.

By permitting a woman to be enticed of her own volition, the law also recognises that she is fully in charge of her own marital affairs. The law respects a woman’s independence, and prohibits men from meddling in her marital affairs. It could further be argued that the law respects a woman’s wisdom, as it has not prevented her from meddling in the marital affairs of married men.

The premise of section 498, therefore, does not lie in any perceived inadequacy of the woman. Instead, rightly interpreted, section 498 perceives men to be inadequate, as he is less to be trusted, has more propensity to disregard marital boundaries, is more likely to act as a sexual predator, and therefore needs to be confined in his actions. A man must learn that "No" means "No", and when a woman is married, the "No" must be presumed unless there is an unequivocal "Yes". And by the way, only the married woman is entitled to make the "Yes" decision free from the encumbrances of the other gender.

Are women’s groups in fact distrusting women to make their own independent decisions as permitted by section 498? Do they actually perceive women to be the weaker sex, and therefore feel the need to assert themselves? Is the premise that men need to be regulated in so far as sexual activity is concerned an objectionable notion to women’s groups?

Lest dissenting voices are drowned in this issue, let me state my position clearly and unequivocally. Section 498 ought to be maintained.

Kheng Hoe is an advocate and solicitor. He believes every argument can be convincing, until one hears the other side. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com.