LETTERS: Sexual grooming cases are not uncommon in Malaysia. Yet, they are not widely discussed due to cultural and religious taboo of not revealing flaws or offending others while things are not proven according to the law.
As a result, there are cases that appear to be silenced, until allegations, accusations and reports are brought against the accused.
According to the Children's Act (Amendment) 2016, parental and guardian awareness is critical and must be reinforced to combat concerns of child neglect, carelessness and abuse, as well as cybersecurity.
Malaysia has adopted the principal international tool for guidance, which is the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (hereafter referred to as "OPSC").
In 2018, there was an investigation concerning a senior figure of a company about sexual grooming. An unidentified email alleged that two of its officers were acting as sexual predators, targeting girls as young as 13.
Following an investigation, the company determined that his recorded actions in the exposé were extremely detrimental to the company's interests and this led to his termination.
The claimant contended that his dismissal was unjust for several reasons, including the recordings circulated had his image blurred and nothing in the footage could be traced back to the company.
Therefore, the company's reputation could not be harmed. But, after reviewing the evidence, the court determined that, because of the power of social media, there is a presumption that the public is aware of, or could have been aware of, the claimant's employment with the company.
Because the claimant held a senior position, the court determined that he owed it to the company's reputation to always protect it. As a result, his dismissal was justified.
Section 11 of the Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017 deals with Offences Relating to Child Grooming. It states that any person who (a) sexually communicates with a child, or (b) encourages a child to sexually communicate, by any means, commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
A person is said to sexually communicate if — (a) the communication or any part of the communication relates to an activity that is sexual in nature, or (b) any reasonable person may consider any part of the communication to be sexual and (3) no person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the communication is for education, scientific or medical purposes.
Thus, while the law is in place, the victims should seize the chance to report the case to police and to the courts. Whether the evidence is adequate, substantiated, or not, the prosecution and the accused have the right to defend themselves.
People should not judge the victims, allege that the victim let herself or himself be sexually abused, or blame the parents or guardians for not playing their roles.
This is regardless of whether it is a face-to-face grooming or online grooming, as children do not understand the nature and consequences of their actions either with consent or not.
Public lack of empathy and sympathy towards the victims show a lack of victimology (the study of crime victims) and understanding unless the cases involve one's own family members. It should be reminded that justice is to serve equally.
DR NOOR DZUHAIDAH OSMAN
DR SYAHIRAH ABDUL SHUKOR
Senior lecturers,
Faculty of Syariah and Law,
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times