NGOs want ‘sweetheart defence’ included in Bill

KUALA LUMPUR: Young couples who engaged in consensual relationships should be protected from getting criminalised under the Sexual Offences Against Children ( SOAC) Bill, say prochildren groups.

This is referred to as the “sweetheart defence”, and the experts said couples with a small age gap between them should be spared the harsh penalties of child sexual crimes.

“To illustrate, a 40yearold man who tells a 12yearold girl or boy to undress is 100% a sexual offender,” said Voice of the Children chairperson Sharmila Sekaran, a practising lawyer who attended a Parliamentary briefing on the Bill yesterday.

“But a 19yearold boy who has sex with his 17yearold girlfriend can be prosecuted under this Bill, which we don’t want.”

Association of Women Lawyers president Goh Siu Lin concurred, saying it was a “reality” that teenagers will engage in sexual activity.

“Teens aged 16 to 18 are sexually active because they have the capacity to consent to sexual activities,” said Goh.

But the accused would have to prove that both parties were in a genuine relationship, added Goh.

Goh and Sharmila both recommended an age gap of three to five years to qualify for the sweetheart defence based on laws in other countries, but they suggested the Government undertake its own studies locally.

Instead of being punished, those who are acquitted should be given counselling, said Sharmila.

Members of the Government’s Child Sexual Crimes Task Force, made up of representatives from child protection NGOs, lawyers, police officers and government agencies, were present at the briefing to answer questions from MPs.

The task force members, which included Sharmila and Goh, also had other recommendations.

Srividhya Ganapathy, cochairman of the Bar Council’s Child Rights Committee said whipping as a punishment should be removed from the Bill, and abolished entirely.

“If the provision for whipping is included (in SOAC), then it should state that a medical officer will be present during the whipping,” she said.

Women’s Centre for Change senior advocacy officer Melissa Mohd Akhir said the language of the current Bill can be improved.

The provision on the “presumption of the credibility of child witness”, for example, should use the term “competency” instead of “credibility”.

“The word competency means that the child understands what it means to go to court and tell the truth, and that should be enough.

“Credibility is determined by the judge,” she said.