“Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows, or has reason to believe, to be the wife of any other man, from that man , or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man , with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals, or detains with that intent any such woman.”
—Section 498 of the Penal Code
Of which the offender could be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or fined or both.
This long-lost, practically forgotten Section, has suddenly become very famous because of a glamorous TV celebrity, Daphne Iking.
I'd like to comment about Section 498 in general; and then I will proceed to share my views about some beautiful and famous women.
Before that, I'd like to share a friend's short comment in an email sent to me this afternoon. His comment was in response to another comment by one of my readers in my previous post:
"having sex with married women is not illegal but enticing her away from her husband is"
My friend's comment was very short. He said:
"What is wrong with this? One you are merely using, the other you are stealing. Using is not a crime, stealing is."
An interesting opinion, and an amusing one too. Actually, strictly speaking, if you are using others' property without permission, that can amount to a crime too. But anyway, there are a few issues here which deserve some discussions.
Firstly, if this Section is strange at all, it is not the first time that this has happened in our legal system. We have many, many more Acts which have gone very, very far from their original intentions. The famous Internal Security Act is just one of them.
Secondly, in my opinion, many more cases are actually about women seducing married men to leave their wives. And I think it makes more sense to provide for legal remedies for the victimized wives. If the law makers think that men who seduce married women to leave their husbands should be punished with imprisonment, then they should also provide for such punishment when it's the women who seduce married men to leave their wives. This is because in our society, there are still many women who're totally dependent on their husbands. They are apt to lose substantially when their husbands are stolen away from them.
But the point that I really want to make is how do we define "entices" in Section 498? How should we determine whether it's entirely because of the man's enticement that caused the woman to leave her husband? Maybe it's a bit of the man's enticement, plus the woman's "willingness to be enticed"? And it is also possible that it's the woman who's all out to search for a man who's willing to "entice" her—that she's merely looking for a scapegoat? It is this third scenario I'd like to explore a bit further.
I'm not a trained psychologist; but I observe people in general. I try to learn how their minds work. Beautiful and famous women are quite often bestowed with some sort of magical charm—which is probably why they're famous in the first place. These creatures frequently worship themselves. They yearn to be the centre of attention—everyone around them must acknowledge their sway!
These women may or may not find a spouse in the end. But the ruling passion is still to captivate everyone around them—men and women. Even if they are married, they still belong to themselves. Perhaps a good example is Elizabeth Taylor. That inclination to captivate others will prevail. They must dominate!
Nevertheless, there will come a time when some people are not so easily captivated by their charm. Some men have that magical charm too. And sometimes in their over-eagerness to captivate these men, those women may well fall prey to their own game too! And that magical charm that has always been an asset may end up becoming a liability too!
21 comments:
An interesting topic which should invite much discussion here.
For a start, I think this particular case causes so much interest and talkingpoint is due to the personality involved. Here we have a tv celebrity who was alleged to have been enticed away from her legal husband.
I think it takes two hands to clap so this case is not exactly what it makes out to be - a married woman being enticed away from her husband.She may have been a willing partner in this scheme.
You may be right to hint that she may have been enticed towards the man because he, being well-off and handsome offered her certain incentives which her husband was not able to give her in their marriage.
If she was just a plain houswife and not a celebrity maybe nobody will pay any attention if the husband bring this to court.
This particular law as it stands now is to lend protection to women.This may be necessary in the days of old when women power hasn't come into the scene yet.
True what you have opined earlier that things have changed so much. Take the case of the China dolls flooding our country and enticing many of the men away from their wives and families to the extent that it is the married men who really needs the legal protection as much as the women.
It is easy to know why the China dolls behaved this way. They usually come from a poor family background in China so any chance of having a better and more comfortable life in another country, just to escape the proverty back in China, attracted them to come here in droves to try their fortune here.
I think the responsibility falls on the person being "enticed." If one is so weak that they cheat on their marriage then they are the one to blame, but this is a question of morality, not legality.
I think it is hilarious that this celebrity is getting away with having been "enticed away" from her husband, like she has no brain or way of making her own decisions... I think this case is ridiculous and no one is to blame but her. She cheated and now is trying to act like the innocent victim...
Anonymous friend,
Before I forget, I've been meaning to ask you this - if you're planning to comment on a regular basis, I would welcome that, but perhaps there is no harm to use a nickname, hmm? That way, my other readers and I are aware that we're actually (still) discussing with the same person?
I must beg to differ a bit. I'm convinced that even if the so-called victim wasn't a celebrity, this kind of law would still have been ridiculed - not "nobody will pay any attention". But of course it won't be publicised as widely as when it involves a celebrity.
But I must agree with Sarah in this case (see, Sarah, we do agree on some things sometimes?), that the responsibility falls on the person being "enticed". It's not that she's a retard who's so easily lured with a candy.
I was just talking to someone this afternoon - someone who actually knew her personally. She said she pities her because whenever there's an article about this Section 498, the papers would include a picture of the "victim" - in this case the celebrity.
Well, I don't know the celebrity beyond the fact that she's a TV personality. I don't know her like, y'know, "know" know. But I'm not sure if she's expecting pity from her audience. Who knows, maybe she's reaping the benefits of all the attention even! People, you know?
Jokes aside, one has to wonder what exactly her husband expects to achieve by trying to put his wife's "enticer" in prison. I suppose that will make him trust his wife again. Maybe once the fellow is punished, he is better able to forget this ugly episode. That's why he just had to dig from way at the bottom of the forgotten laws to try to make that fellow pay for what he did. I just hope he's doing it for the right reason. But I have a feeling that at the end of it all, he's still gonna be miserable.
Anonymous here,
Interestingly I was actually musing earlier when I first started commenting on your blog whether I should use a proper "nick". I thought it was supposed to be a one-time posting only so decided against using one. Anyhow "Anonymous" is also a nick if you care to treat it as one.
However as things turned out especially when you put up certain interesting pieces, I found myself commenting more and more.
Like you suggested, it is about time I use a proper nick from now on so it is gonna be "Socrates 2009" from now on.
Back to the business at hand (Section 498-Penal Code). Interesting enough a friend of mine from Sydney, who must have been following the Iking celebrity case sent me the following quote:-
"When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge thanto let him keep her" - David Bissonette.
I have no idea who David Bissonette is or was, but what he quoted here have no relevance to the Iking case ongoing here i Malaysia.The point he was trying to make was taking the normal assumption that most men are not happy with their wives or the women they married and would be more han happy to get them off their hands.
Unlike the Iking case, here we have a glamourous and pretty woman who must have been the fantasy object and obsession of other men.Which explans why her legal husband is unhappy she was enticed away by another man.
As to why she behaves or chose to do what she has done I can only end with another quote:-
"The great question...which I have not been able to answer...is, "What does a woman want?" unquote -Dumas.
Socrates2009 over and out.
Ah! that's much better, Socrates2009! And that's a fantastic nickname too! I thought you would use something more modern like Count Dooku or something like that.
I don't know who's David Bissonette either, but I don't think that's what he meant. The way I see it, he's implying that women who cheat on their husbands are not worth keeping; that they're bound to cheat again next time. So perhaps they will cheat on their new men too. In that sense, those men who stole these women from their husbands, will eventually find that these women will also abandon them for yet other men.
Some women, as I said in my above post, want constant attention. The husbands being away most of the time is bad news.
“Ryan travels a lot and stays everywhere except Malaysia! I will be based here, though. We may not see each other daily but absence makes the heart grow fonder, so this is a dream marriage!”
From the horse's mouth. This well-rehearsed comment is the kind of romantic line which many people would expect from a celebrity. But it bears no resemblance with reality. If you have read her blog too - I'm sure you have - there're plenty of religious verses etc quoted from the Bible. But the reality is that she was still seduced by another man. The mind is strong, the flesh is weak. And it's not always the man who's weak. Sometimes women are weak too.
I'm not qualified to judge who's right or wrong. None of us really know what's going on within the 4 walls of their bedroom. Maybe it's the husband who's been neglecting a spouse who's longing for attention? There must be one thousand and one possibilities of what actually happened between this couple.
But one thing is for sure - I am happily immune from all those good girl and religious behavior which we see on the surface; it has no effect on me!
regarding David Bissonette quote, I think Socrates 2009 interpretation is more accurate.
Reminds me of this well traveled joke.
A police officer attempts to stop a car for speeding and the guy gradually increases his speed until he's topping 100 mph. He eventually realizes he can't escape and finally pulls over. The cop approaches the car and says, "It's been a long day and my tour is almost over, so if you can give me a good excuse for your behavior, I'll let you go." The guy thinks for a few seconds and then says, "My wife ran away with a cop about a week ago. I thought you might be that officer trying to give her back!"
We're not gonna embark on a long debate about this too, are we, delurk?... hehehe
Yes, that is a possible interpretation too. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not even claiming my interpretation is the right one. I'm just saying "the way I see it", it's about the satisfaction of letting the "enticer" keep his wife, so that that "enticer" will suffer the same fate in time to come. The reason I'm interpreting it that way is because of the word "revenge" in the quote; that is to say you want the other man to suffer the same pain that you have suffered at his hands.
Phew!... so complicated, huh?
So, Mr Bissonette, if you're still alive and reading this, please feel free to explain to us all!... HAHAHA!
The choice of using "Socrates2009" was not something I just pick up from the sky but after pondering for quite sometimt what is a proper and appropriate nick to use in a discussion board like this one.
Socrates as you may have learned from European history was a Greek philosopher who was credited as one of the founding fathers of western philosophy.
He was the one who came up with the learning ideology known as pedagogy which is commonly used in cases involving wide range of discussion where series of questions are asked (like what we are doing here in your blog) not only to draw individual answers, but to encourage fundamental insights into the issue being discussed at hand.
Back to the business at hand about our lady celebrity.Thanks for letting me know she has her own blog so my lunch break was totally spent in between chewing sandwiches going through her blog's contents.
I found some of her earlier entries in 2006 in her blog very interesting which may throw some light on how she thinks which may account the reasons why she in this situation today.
The entries are those of:-
1. 11th October 2006 -heading : "Can a woman & a man have just a platonic relationship?"
2. 18th October 2006 - heading "If I ever become a singer".
3. 19th October 2006 - heading "I have found someone new....."
The more one reads her blog and writings, the more one can really understand the person.
The quote you are all debating is very old. I think Cornelius is right on with his interpretation.
Cornelius, we actually agree on a topic.. This is cause for celebration!!
hahaha! :)
This topic is so simple it is rather boring. Come on people, the cheater is the one to blame, period.
Forget all the cliche quotes that have been rehashed for decades.
Socrates2009,
Yes, I can still remember, though admittedly very little, about Socrates. Mia was reading quite a number of those books about the likes of Socrates, Plato etc when she was pursuing her Jurisprudence papers years ago.
Yes, reading about her thoughts and opinions can help to shed some light about her character. And I guess that's why most people are not prepared to pen their thoughts too openly. My niece, who recently found my blog, told her mom that uncle Kong dares to pour out everything and speak out his mind. She did not think that it's a very wise thing to do because others can use that against me one of these days. And I think the kid is not exactly wrong too!
So I suppose by now most of my readers can more or less guess my character. But fortunately I'm not famous, handsome and spiritual, so I'm not worth to be enticed away from my wife (smile).
Sarah,
I'm afraid the celebration will have to be cut short. Yes, we do agree sometimes, but of course we can't do that all the time - it wouldn't be us you know!
As much as I'd love to blame the cheating wife, and as much as I want to judge her, the truth of the matter is that we don't have all the information to do that. As I said earlier, none of us know what's going on within the 4 walls of their bedroom.
Sometimes, Sarah, things are not what they seem to be. You should learn not to jump too quickly to the conclusion, especially when dealing with people. So many things may be going on. We are dealing with clashes of the emotions. You should learn to see things from many angles; from the points of view of those characters, and then you might just surprise yourself with how you can change your perceptions.
If, for example, you can try to imagine what Mia went through when she survived the day the man tried to stab her, and actually cut her earlobe, perhaps you can imagine the trauma she went through for a long time after that. If only you knew that she had recurring nightmares of seeing the man stabbing her over and over again each time she went to sleep. Then maybe you can understand why she's so scared of the Suluks. In her terrified mind, they all look the same. But only if you can fathom what's going on in her mind.
And so, I say again, I am not impressed with the apparent religious person in Daphne Iking; I am not impressed with all those friendly and charming things we see on the surface; all those recitals of verses from the Bible mean nothing to me coming from her. But even after stripping all those way, and looking from a neutral point of view, we still don't know much about what's going on in the heart and mind of Daphne Iking.
I do not condone a woman cheating on her husband, but before I see the full picture and weigh all the elements, there is no way I am able to arrive at an informed opinion.
So what we have here are all speculations and our attempts to understand what's going on. Even my own impression of beautiful and famous women may not fit well to reflect the character of Ms Iking. That's just to get the ball rolling.
Maybe Socrates is better able to judge her, now that he has spent his entire lunch break reading her blog all the way back to 2006?
My guess is that the law was there to protect a happily married couple. In today's society, there could be "marriage wreckers" who might continually harass a faithful wife, although the message has been delivered very clearly to him that she is not interested. Such approaches upset both husband and wife and to stop his advances, they can use this section to keep him away.
I would not think it was meant to keep or protect an unfaithful wife.
As for this case, what is the husband trying to get? Out of court settlement? Shame the wife? Tell the whole world that the other guy is a wife snatcher?
Hey scute! Congratulations for your very first comment in my blog! Welcome, my friend!
Yes, you may be on to something there as far as the law is concerned. But then again, if that is indeed the purpose of that Section, then we come back to the same question - why does it not cover both genders? Why not provide for the same remedy when it's the husband who's being enticed? For as I've said earlier, there are probably sufficient cases of men dumping their wives for younger women to justify such provision of legal remedy (for the victimised wives).
As for the legal action commenced by the husband in the present case, it could be because of any of those reasons you have mentioned. Of course when looking from the sidelines, these reasons seem ridiculous. We may say something like "What's the point?"
Nevertheless, people do strange things when they are angry. That is quite an expected result when one decides from the heart and not the head. They may be blind to logic and common sense. It looks stupid from where I stand right now. But if I were in his shoes now, I wouldn't dare to say that I won't do exactly the same thing!
I can only offer this opinion why the husband brings this supposed-to-be private and personal matter to court for all the world to hear and see.
The husband comes from a well-to-do family and is wealthy and so have no qualms about going to court to shame both the man who enticed her (who is also equally wealthy and well-off)and the wife who is a celebrity as a sort of revenge act.
As things were, the lady in this case has already revealed to the press yesterday that the bad and adverse publicity generated by the court case and interest in Section 498 of the Penal Court has caused her to loose some jobs.
The way things will eventually turn out after the the court cases and aftermath, nobody wins and the main loser is their little girl who will be either without a father or mother to bring her up, depending on who gets to keep her.
Sad isn't it.
Socrates,
I wonder if anyone ever conducted a study to investigate if there is any connection between the duration of courtship and how long the marriage can last.
6 months seems like a very short time to get to know someone well enough to spend the rest of one's life with, huh?
In the good ol' days some people never even had a chance to see their spouses to be. Their parents arranged for everything, and the next thing they're already married. They then began to get to know each other and then hopefully fall in love in the process. Yet most of those marriages lasted until old age.
But these days, things no longer work that way. Everyone talks about right to love, right to choose! If he or she is no good, then that's it, off you go!
In view of the above, 6 months' courtship appears like living in a fairytale world. In fact, one can almost say that it would have been very surprising if the marriage could last!
By the way, yes, she lost some jobs. But she also gained some. The tendency to forgive a beautiful creature is there. Then some displays of "good girl" and religious front. That would probably melt her fans' hearts in no time.
And so even if one's caught drinking in a bar when one's not supposed to, that is not so damaging. Just put on the headscarf and announce that you have taubat; that you're willing to accept the punishments. The audience will melt, and everyone will support you... no worries.
Thanks for the welcome. Our generation is a bit slow taking off when it comes to IT. Still trying to grasp Facebook, Twitter etc
Anyway, back to the law. What I'm trying to say is that it was meant to protect happily married couple who would turn away from any advances from third party.
If someone tries to entice the wife, the husband (and the wife) can use this to turn him away. I would imagine during the trial, the wife would be the main witness to testify.
If someone tries to entice the husband, the wife do not have to use law to turn away the third party. A broom would do!
MUAHAHAHA!
I like the broom solution! I have seen with my own eyes that approach actually put into practice.
But, scute, unfortunately, the wife doesn't always get the chance to find out in time. Sometimes, what really happens is that the husband spends lesser and lesser time at home "because of work". And suddenly one day he tells his wife that he's been having an affair with another woman for the last 3 years now. Never mind if it's just an affair, but she's also expecting his second child. At that stage, how much difference can the broom make?
And oh! you're into Facebook and Twitter, huh? Way to go! I've got like the whole world trying to get me on to Facebook for a while now. most recently, my brother-in-law also encouraged me to do the Facebook thing. I might just do it! I've got too many people sending me invitations via emails to join Facebook! But perhaps I will delay it for a bit. I just don't know where I'm gonna find the time to maintain Facebook. This blog is quite enough for now!
Cornelius,
You failed to grasp what I meant. The law is to protect a happily married couple who tries together to fend off advances by third parties. Husband and wife are determine to stay together but got people kacau kacau. They tell them to back off, but thick face just could not get message and continue harassing and enticing. So use the law lor, or the broom or the most potent solution, the mother in-law.
If you add the second and third together, who needs the law? A good pair of running shoes is what the third party needs.
Using the broom is the wife's prerogative to wade off amorous admirers or lovers.
What about the husband? What can he used? Apart from Section 498,Surely not the broom also but maybe he can as a last resort, use the lawless method (reminiscence of the Italian job)of spending a bit of money to some thugs to teach the Casanova a lesson?
scute,
In the scenario you've described, I fail to see the need of Section 498. Any other injunction order (say on grounds of harassment) could be used to ensure that the outsider keep their distance from the happily-married couple.
Socrates,
That "Italian Job" thing you mentioned is not so far-fetched in Malaysia as you might think. I know of as least ONE such local case.
However, this kind of remedy is probably more suitable to teach a male enticer a lesson. It's probably not so suitable in dealing with a female enticer. Nonetheless, in the case that I mentioned above, it was used against a female enticer.
Post a Comment