Crimes against society, committing statutory rapes but our judges misusing let criminals go free society must respectfully accept.said Datuk M. Ramalingam

TRUST ME:VICTIMS OF CHILD RAPE CASES AND NOT PERPETRATORSHAS  THE CHILD JUDGE  OR THEIR COUSINS, THE NOUVEAU RICHE, HAD BEEN RAPED WOULD STILL BE IN  PRISON,

Cynics have called ‘Justice’ a circus. When you buy a ticket to the circus you get clowns along with lion-tamers, while trapeze artistes inspire the cheerleaders. But it does become a curious  scandalous mess is neat and categorised. Cash and sex are the north and south pole of mass interest, each with a sprawling magnetic field. We divide the hemispheres with the equator of logic. Cash and corruption are the preserve of politics. Sex is the province of glamour. We refuse to recognise any cross-over evidence.extravaganza when you can’t tell the difference between who is who.courts should focus more on justice a nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order. When Anderson was smuggled out to safety, the authority of state abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted over 26 years; this central truth has not.t is odd that the government should have chosen law and order as its final alibi after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation for the escape of how two rapists escaped jail sentences because they were considered youthful offenders. judgment served only one useful purpose. The sheer scale of its magnanimity towards the accused lit a fuse under the volcano of collective guilt. The lava is spewing from myriad crevices, scorching and burning many-layered masks that have hidden deceit for a generation. As memories were stoked, officials, some perhaps frustrated by the fact that their silence had not been rewarded,

 

Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”? Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have vaulted us to the acme of social cohesion, for they eliminated arbitrary diktat and introduced collective will. The divine right of kings is dead; it has been reborn as the  right of  the Court of Appeal judges 

The city police chief wants every mischief monger behind bars, whether a rash driver or a protestor or a murderer. "Bloody, we will put them in jail," has been the mantra of CP Ankush Dhanvijay, whenever he predicts chaos in the offing.This strategy has been used for every situation, from stopping rumour-mongers thrashing innocents mistaken for thieves to dissuading bike Romeos who try to impress girls with stunts on the roads. Dhanvijay has only one line to offer, 'we will put them in jail'. If he is not satisfied with the impact of his statement, he goes on to add, "We will first put them in jail, then see what can be done."

The Appeals Court ruling affirming a Sessions Court’s decision which bound national tenpin bowling ace Noor Afizal Azizan for good behaviour for five years for a sum of RM25,000 for committing statutory rape has to be respected under the circumstances and the sanctity of the court be preserved and honoured.

Secretary-general of the National Council of Justices of the Peace, Malaysia, Datuk M. Ramalingam said in reaching the decision, the Court of Appeal judges had taken pains to explain the rationale behind their decision on “first- time child offenders” which society must respectfully accept.

 Child rights groups said today that the courts should focus more on justice for victims of child rape cases and not perpetrators’ bright futures, amid a public uproar over how two rapists escaped jail sentences because they were considered youthful offenders.Nobody can protect you better than yourself! Trust your instincts and fight back!

It is a sad reflection on our society that women feel unsafe and unprotected not just on deserted roads and car parks, but even in their own homes. Young lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha was attacked and killed by her watchman in what should be the most secure place — her own bedroom! Pallavi’s case has shaken the confidence of the bravest of girls. In the aftermath of the horrific news, a single friend asked in distress, “Does that mean we cannot trust any man?”

I hate to say this, but yes, it does seem like it. Better safe than sorry… or worse. When work and lifestyles dictate that women need to travel alone, live alone and commute alone, how does a woman ensure her own safety?

I think it is important to be prepared for the worst. However dire this may sound, the only way to defend yourself is to take measures against the worst that can happen. Most girls are caught unprepared. Make a note of your most vulnerable moments when you can be overpowered and guard against those.

Trust your womanly instincts about people and situations. Be alert to your surroundings and aware of the first signs of danger. If you feel someone is following you, step into a crowded place. Call a friend or relative to escort you back.

As you get into or out of your car, watch out for anyone lurking around or a single man in the car parked next to yours. Run back to safety if you are suspicious. Always walk confidently, don’t look lost. It is proven that criminals target the lost, scared-looking women. I read advice from a cop that said even if the assailant has a gun, try and get away; there is only 4 in 100 chance that he will be able to get a hit!

Feed in the police control room number or 100 into your speed dial. Also have a friend or relative on speed dial. When in vulnerable spots, keep a pepper spray handy. Spray it into the eyes of an assailant. A perfume bottle or hairspray are good alternatives. Supreme Court lawyer Shilpi Jain urges single women to learn self-defence techniques and apply for licenced pistols, to keep in touch with neighbours and call the police patrol at the first sign of danger. “The law is clear that in self-defence you can attack anybody though you must not harm them more than necessary.”

Politeness could be your undoing. Never open the door to a stranger when alone nor stop to help another in a deserted area. Call the cops instead. When a mechanic or plumber is due home for work, request a neighbour or friend to be present.

Door keys should never be left in obvious places. Once inside, do not leave them next to the main door. This is the mistake Pallavi made. Dress appropriately, as per occasion. Clothes that may seem appropriate inside a bar will look provocative when alone in a deserted area.

Remember we live in a world of sharp contrasts — the haves and the have-nots, the educated and the uneducated, the cultured and the uncultured. To flash wealth or flesh, or to be perceived to be free with your favours, is to tip the balance, and invite trouble!

The groups expressed concern at what appears to be a legal trend of letting convicted child rapists avoid a jail sentence, following two recent cases where two young men were each released on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond.

Former national bowler Noor Afizal Azizan and electrician Chuah Guan Jiu, were 19 and 21 respectively when they committed the offence of rape on girls who were then aged 13 and 12.

Dr Hartini Zainudin from Yayasan Chow Kit and Voice of the Children spoke out strongly against the judges’ decision in both cases.

“Why are the judges talking about bright futures of the perpetrators? ... Where is the consideration given to these young girls? Their futures? What does this say about young children raped?”

The “future” of the convicted offenders was one of the factors that the courts considered in arriving at their decision.

She also pointed out that “consensual sex can only happen if a child is 16 and above,” in reference to the courts’ consideration of apparent consent in the two cases.

“It seems there is no justice for a child victim to step forward and testify because somehow, even if they were coerced, tricked, wooed, it was consensual if there was no sign of force,” she added.

Hartini said that “judges better be more sensitive to the welfare and protection of the child — justice for them first.”

She also said there is a “very dangerous and ominous message” that “basically says, paedophiles, you can manipulate the system and victims, your rapist will get away with the crime.”

Childline project director Michelle Wong shared Hartini’s view, saying that “with the judgment on the convicted rapists, we are concerned that people will not treat statutory rape as a serious offence.”

“It’s trivialising the impact on the victim, who is still a child.”

Wong also feared that the judges’ decision would give the impression that even a 12-year-old is able to give consent as if deemed legal in court.  

“Statutory rape already assumes that consent cannot be given. Why are we suddenly saying that a 12 year old giving it is alright?” said Wong.

“There is a concern that this is a precedent to be set in adult-child cases. As both the offenders are adults, the cases should be carefully looked at.

“(W)e are concerned that a child’s right to protection has been violated and statutory rape cases should have a greater focus on the child victim for whose protection the law was designed, than solely on the perpetrator,” she said in a statement to The Malaysian Insider.

Voice Of the Children’s chairman Sharmila Sekaran said, “It is disturbing to see the court lightly following the previous bowler case as a precedence.”

“The victim’s rights comes first, and we should consider her best interests. With the public outrage, it is quite clear that they feel that not enough attention is being given,” she said in a phone interview.

P.S. The Children executive director P. Nagasayee Malathy said the court sentence would create a negative impression, especially among vulnerable adolescents where there is a lack of awareness.

Malathy also said that the country “should look from the best interest of the child (who is a victim)”, pointing out that Malaysia had signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

In a press statement today, he said at the same time, the courts would only be too happy to take cognisance of any salient point resultant from legitimate public criticism of a judicial decision as a means to ensure “justice is served” in a complex criminal case, particularly involving child offenders.

“There is no question of our judges misusing the opportunities presented at a judicial review in the overall interest of the civil society. It demands wisdom as well as knowledge and unity of the judges to arrive at a legally acceptable decision where public interest is rightfully served,” he said.

Ramalingam said the public should allow the long arm of the law to take its due course in order to implement the principles of a judicial review which is enshrined in our court system.

He added that the courts would not be offended in a cause for action in a review which in effect, would be a “second bite of the cherry” for justice to be served to the fullest.

“In the end, the court will come out clean and its excellent judicial performance will be glorified as it will set a binding precedent,” he said.

On August 8, the Appeals Court allowed Noor Afizal’s appeal to restore the Sessions Court’s decision which bound him over for good behaviour for five years for a sum of RM25,000 for committing statutory rape.

A three-member panel led by Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Raus Md Sharif unanimously set aside the five-year jail term imposed on Noor Afizal by the Malacca High Court in allowing the prosecution’s appeal for an enhanced sentence.

On July 5, last year, the Malacca Sessions Court bound over Noor Afizal, 21, for good behaviour on a bond of RM25,000 for five years in one surety after he pleaded guilty to committing the offence on a 13-year-old girl at a hotel in Ayer Keroh, Malacca between 12.30am and 5am on June 5, 2009.

The Sessions Court, in binding him over, considered several factors, including that there was a consensual sexual relationship between him and the girl.

He was given a five-year jail sentence by the Malacca High Court on September 20 last year, which allowed the appeal brought by the prosecution which was dissatisfied with the Sessions Court’s decision.

Noor Afizal represented Negeri Sembilan between 2004 and 2010 and also represented Malaysia in the National Youth Category for five years (2004-2008).

He also bowled in the Thailand International Open championship in April this year, and is expected to represent Kedah in several upcoming tournaments such as the KL International Open Championship 2012

"The street Romeo hurled acid on a girl's face, but how did the cops go blind," asked a women's activist with a crestfallen face in reaction to the police decision not to register a case in the two-week-old acid attack on a lecturer. The reason the cops gave for letting the attacker go free was the girl's father refused to register a complaint, as that would be a stigma on the family.

The activist said it seems the police are just waiting for a complainant to be disinterested to drop a case. Many other activists said nothing makes a cop happier than a man saying that he does not want to register a complaint, but came to the police station just because he was scared. After he walks out, the proud cops brandish a statement taken in writing that the man does not want to lodge a complaint.

In the fortnight-old incident, a lecturer was attacked with acid by a jilted lover at a busy public place. Senior police officers were happy to get a written declaration from the girl's family that they did not want to register a complaint for the sake of their reputation. The outcome: while the girl is still in hospital fighting the trauma of serious burn injuries, the Romeo is free as a bird after the formality of some 'preventive action'.

The next day, a senior cop from Ambazari police station remained busy the entire day threatening the media not to name of the girl's family or report the story. He claimed the family will drag scribes to court for reporting the acid attack. Every time a journalist called up the cops to enquire about the shocking incident, they were told that the girl's father has already gone to the office of a newspaper to protest against coverage, so no one should report the incident.

However, a renowned legal practitioner said of the attitude of senior officers, "The officer-in-charge of a police station should recall section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which makes it his duty to reduce oral or written information about a cognizable offence into a complaint. It is not his duty to inform the media about the provisions of defamation that the girl's father threatened to invoke."

In a similar case around a year ago, a woman approached Kalamna police station with the complaint that her minor daughter was abused by a neighbour. Police conducted a medical test and found the facts could be true. As they were about to register an offence of rape, the neighbour approached the girl's mother, apologized for the act and promised not to trouble her again regarding petty issues in the locality. The immediately asked the cops not to register an offence.

There was also the incident of kidnapping of a senior lawyer by his former female attorney, who was demanding justice for being seduced over a decade without fulfilment of promises made during the emotional time. There had been a daylong drama at Sakkardara police station. A senior officer was called from another zone to Sakkardara to supervise the matter, but to his surprise no offence was registered, neither kidnapping nor rape. After keeping the cops on the tenterhooks for several hours, the parties decided to furnish in writing that they had no complaints against each other.The issue of abortion coverage for victims of rape was pushed into the national spotlight when my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee uttered his now infamous "legitimate rape" phrase.

The debate has centered on the biologically and ridiculously false claim that a woman's body can prevent itself from getting pregnant during a rape. Also generating considerable discussion is whether abortion coverage should be available in the instance of a pregnancy from rape.

While a ban currently exists on abortion coverage in federal insurance programs, within these plans there is an exception for rape survivors. Women enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, the Indian Health Service and even women in federal prisons all have access to abortion coverage if their pregnancies are the result of a rape or if the woman's life is threatened. Federal health plans also provide for the exception of rape and life endangerment for federal employees.

The one exception to this is the more than 400,000 female servicemembers. Women in the military -- women who are putting their lives on the line every day for our freedom -- are not covered under their military health coverage if their pregnancy is the result of rape. An exception is allowed if the women's life is being threatened by the pregnancy.

When Congress debated the National Defense Authorization Act last year, some colleagues and I attempted to correct this injustice with an amendment to authorize coverage for abortion services in cases in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

As is the procedure for amendments, I asked the House Rules Committee to allow my amendment to be debated and voted on during consideration of the defense bill on the House floor.

While the Democrats supported my amendment, the Republican majority on the committee opposed it. The amendment to grant coverage to servicewomen who are rape survivors was not ruled in order and it died in committee.

Driving the argument behind the amendment was the issue of sexual assault in the military. Along with the dangers that servicemembers face every day while serving their country there is a danger of sexual assault -- a serious problem within the ranks.

A report from the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office at the Department of Defense indicates that the vast majority of sexual assault victims are under the age of 25 and from junior enlisted ranks.

This means they are earning less pay and therefore less likely to be able to pay for additional medical expenses, often causing them to delay medical care in order to find necessary funds.

The House Armed Services Committee has worked for years to address sexual assault. While progress has been made on this front, there is much more to be done.

But we continue to add insult to injury by denying medical coverage to those servicewomen who become pregnant as a result of a rape during their service.

During the debate on my amendment, a story surfaced about a 22-year-old U.S. Army private who was raped at a military base in Afghanistan.

She became pregnant and wanted an abortion. Since a pregnancy from rape is not covered she had no choice but to come home for the procedure, interrupting her service and her career.

She faced "red-tape" delays in coming home plus the difficulty of raising the money for her procedure. Her sole source of financial support was her mother who was living on a fixed, low income.

Despite the existence of a vocal minority, there has long been bipartisan support for women who require care when their life is threatened or when they are victims of rape and incest.

If we don't provide compassionate support for women serving in uniform, who face an intimate, most personal decision, we are turning our backs on them in a time of great need.

Even for servicewomen who don't require this service, current policy sends a demoralizing message. It tells them that if they become pregnant due to a sexual assault, they are on their own.

If the federal government can provide this exception to assaulted women who are not in uniform, we can and should also ensure that the brave servicewomen who are victimized during their military service receive all the medical care that they need.A corollary of the great pride Americans feel for the basic principles of our criminal justice system, like the presumption of innocence and sentencing that is proportionate to the crime, is our disapprobation of foreign systems in which such features are absent. We were shocked, for example, to hear that Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, the impenitent mass murderer of 77 children at a summer camp near Oslo, was sentenced to 21 years in prison. A sentence of roughly three months per child is hideously out of line with our sense of justice and deterrence. At the same time, we are disdainful when we learn, as we often do in school, of the absence of a presumption of innocence in the criminal proceedings in European and other countries.

While our reactions in such cases reflect a laudable sense of balance and justice, the problem is that they're based on an abundance of misinformation. Blame the media, the educational system, excessive pride, or xenophobia, but our view of the criminal proceedings in other legal systems is sometimes seriously warped.

For example, while a mere 21 years of imprisonment -- the maximum in relatively peaceable Norway -- strikes us as inadequate for Breivik's atrocity, he'll almost certainly spend the rest of his days behind bars, as do the perpetrators of other horrific crimes in that country. Prior to the expiration of his sentence, however, his case will be reviewed under stringent guidelines prohibiting his release absent strong evidence that he's no longer a threat, a virtually unthinkable conclusion according to experts in Norwegian criminal justice in light of the monstrous nature of the offense and his grotesque impenitence. Indeed, such evaluation after decades of incarceration approximates the American practice of parole hearings. In the end, Norway's penal policies bear a greater resemblance to our own than any of the popular accounts of the Breivik case let on.

The widespread belief that criminal defendants in continental Europe are presumed guilty and must prove their innocence is equally inaccurate. Under the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, for example, all European countries must, and do, provide that "[e]veryone charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty." Perhaps the myth about the absence of the presumption traces back to the fact that, in many civil law regimes like France and Germany, the ultimate trial of a criminal defendant is preceded by proceedings designed, more than our own preliminary hearings, to identify innocent defendants and weed out weak cases. By the time a defendant reaches the final trial stage in these systems, much of what transpires in our criminal trials has already taken place and most who are innocent have been filtered out of the system. At this point, as in the latter portion of our own adversarial trials, the initial presumption of innocence can be overtaken by the weight of the evidence. The logic here is to identify innocence and futile prosecutions before defendants are subjected to a full-blown trial at significant cost to the state.

While criminal proceedings around the world are rife with barbarous abuses, myths about the inferiority of foreign justice abound. Our scanty understanding of other legal systems generates ugly misconceptions of foreign systems and cultures. While we are rightly proud of the fairness and balance built into our adversarial criminal trials, our satisfaction should be leavened with the knowledge that almost all criminal charges in our system are resolved through the crapshoot of plea bargaining. And we must take care that our pride not ferment -- as it has at times -- into hubris and chauvinism. Jay Sterling Silver is a law professor at St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami Gardens, Florida who teaches and writes on criminal law.




Bollywood actor Shiney Ahuja was on Wednesday convicted for raping his maidin June 2009 by a Mumbai sessions court. The Shivdi fast-track court sentenced him to seven years in prison for the rape.

As the judge read out the sentence, a visibly shaken Ahuja broke down in the court.

Ahuja had been arrested in June 2009 after his teenaged maid complained to police that he had raped her.

But in a dramatic turnaround in September 2010, Ahuja's maid had told the fast-track court that the actor never raped her. She admitted slapping false charges on the actor on the instructions of a woman, who helped her in getting the job with Ahujas.

The court, however, decided that she had turned a hostile witness and may now try her for perjury.

I can't remember a time when I didn't know about rape. And I can't remember how I learned. I just know it was there, always there. Being raped altered and shaped my mother's identity, and I always knew that.

When I was nine or 10, maybe 11, and I wanted to know the details about my mother's rape, all I had to do was look it up. My mother had been telling her story for 20 years.

I learned the details about my mother's rape by reading the first chapter of "Real Rape," a book she wrote about rape law in America, a book that began with a chapter called "My Story." And as I read about the trauma, the aftermath, the way the Boston police treated her and how the doctors at the hospital responded, I also realized something unsettling: it wasn't just I who knew these details; people all over the place could -- and did, in fact -- also know the painful details of my mother's rape.

My mom was 21, just a few months older than I am today. She was a senior at Wellesley. It was two days before her college graduation. He was a stranger with an ice pick. She was parking her car in the alley behind her apartment in Boston. I used to think it happened at night, but that must be a detail supplied by my imagination. I know this because a quick online search tells me that my mother was raped in the afternoon, not the evening. A Thursday afternoon. My mom was raped on a Thursday afternoon in May by a man wielding an ice pick. The police never found him.

I still feel a little odd about the fact that I can use the Internet to fact-check details about my mom's rape.

For a while, I wasn't sure if this was a story that I was allowed to tell. I remember the responses I received when I first told people that my mother had been raped. These were people who didn't know this about my mom. They expressed surprise, then admonishment: "Are you sure you should be telling people about that? That's private." I went home feeling confused and even a little ashamed, embarrassed. I knew the story wasn't private. But maybe I wasn't supposed to tell this story. This was my mom's story, not mine. She could tell it, not I. That day, I asked her if it was okay that I had told people. "It's not private," she told me. "It's okay." Not that I should necessarily just go around sharing, but if it seemed relevant, sure. Not that I actually would have shared this story with everybody; I knew that plenty of my classmates didn't even know what rape was yet. But hearing my mother tell me this didn't quite answer my question. Because I still thought that this was my mother's story. It wasn't until recently that I understood that even though I wasn't there in the alley that Thursday afternoon, this was my story, too. My mother's rape shaped my childhood. I grew up watching and listening to my mother discuss rape -- on television, in speeches, in her law school classes, with friends, with family, with me. Everywhere. I grew up with her words about rape echoing in a constant loop inside my head. And in this way, my mom's story became a part of my story. A part of me. A part of the person I have become and am still in the process of becoming.

My mother's mother -- my grandmother -- told my mother that she shouldn't tell anyone that she had been raped, that if she did, nobody would want her. She had been soiled. My mom decided to tell her story because she refused to hide, and she understood the importance of refusing to hide. To hide would be to suggest that this was something to be embarrassed about, something that was somehow her fault. Hiding would mean giving in to the injustice. Hiding would preclude her from being able to really fight back.

Last week, I directed a production of "A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant and a Prayer," a collection of monologues compiled by Eve Ensler about rape and violence against women. "A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant and a Prayer" would not and could not have been produced at Harvard 30 years ago. Close to 30 years ago, my mother was a young professor at Harvard Law School. She was teaching Criminal Law and had planned to devote one day to discussing rape law. On that day, she told her class about her rape experience. If the subject was armed robbery and had she been robbed by a man with an ice pick, she wouldn't have thought twice about mentioning it. But this was rape, and rape, my mother was told, should not be discussed in public.

In spite of her fears about possible repercussions, she told her story. The campus exploded with discussion. The Harvard Crimson wrote about it. She received much more criticism than support. One day she received a phone call from someone who said, "I'm one of your students, and before the end of the semester, I'm going to rape you, too." This led to an eventually inconclusive investigation. The police tapped her phone line and asked her to call on students who she thought might particularly hate her in class, to see if any of their voices sounded familiar.

Last week, 36 years after my mother's rape and nearly 30 years after my mother was threatened after she spoke out at Harvard, I stood on stage in a Harvard theater, sharing this story and opening a production about true stories of rape and violence.

Thirty years ago, the Harvard organization that sponsored this production, the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (OSAPR), was still decades away from being born.

My mother told her story even though she was afraid. She still is. But thanks to her bravery and her fight, I am not afraid. I am conscious of the dangers. I am cautious when I walk around alone at night and would never accept a drink from a stranger. I have taken multiple full-impact self-defense courses. I have known about rape for as long as I can remember.

But I am not afraid.

KUALA LUMPUR: Information, Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim has refuted allegations that he raped his Indonesian maid in 2007.

"I refute the allegations, whether they are about raping any individual four years ago (2007) or any other allegation, raised by bloggers on the Internet or by any political entity," he said in a statement on Wednesday.

He described the allegations against him in blog reports and by the Opposition as "heaps of libellous statements and awful, ugly and wicked lies".

"I state readily that any report by anyone so far related to this matter should be investigated under the country's laws," he said.

Dr Rais said he and his family members were prepared to extend full cooperation in such an investigation, and would accept and comply with any outcome of the official probe.

The allegations against a senior Malaysian Cabinet minister were contained in cables made public by whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.

Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) head Badrul Hisham Shaharin, or better known as Chegu Bard said it was strange that the minister had remained quiet although it had been days since the issue was first raised.

"As far as we are concerned, he is only guilty until proven guilty. He is still an innocent party but he must come forward and say something...Malaysians would assume that he is guilty if he continues to keep quiet," he said.

Badrul Hisham said this before lodging a report on the matter at the Seremban 2 police station here.

"He must say something because almost every blogger isl talking about it. Although he is still innocent, the manner his name is being mentioned shows that he is guilty of the crime as he has chose to remain silent," he said.

Following the revelation by Wikileaks, Migrant Care, a non-governmental organisation which looked into the wellbeing of Indonesian workers lodged a police report claiming that the victim was allegedly raped in Feb 2007. She was then deported to Indonesia.

Badul Hisham said since the minister had made a police report against a blogger immediately after the latter claimed that there were irregularities in the awarding of contracts in his ministry, it was only proper for the minister to respond to the latest allegation promptly.

"We are worried that being a senior minister, he can be blackmailed if he does not openly deny the charge. This will eventually become a problem to national security," he said.

He said the police should also immediately start a probe into the allegation.

"If the police remains quiet, then the people would say that ministers are a privileged lot and given special protection," he said adding that the minister should be suspended from his official duties pending the outcome of the investigations.

Badrul Hisham said if the authorities failed to address then allegation, this could cause unnecessary tension in ties between Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta.

"We are giving the police 14 days to begin its probe into the allegation failing which we would be forced to adopt more drastic measures to compel the authorities to do so," he said.

Meanwhile, PKR Youth said it believed the allegations concerning the rape of an Indonesian domestic helper by a Malaysian minister are true, said Youth head Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin.

"PKR Youth views such revelations seriously. The incident happened on Feb 19, 2007 but the (survivor) has been forced to keep mum as threats were made against her," he claimed in a statement in a news portal.

He said no action had been taken against the minister for fear of regional conflict.

"The issue is being hotly debated in the cyber-world. As to the validity of the allegation, only (the minister) and God know (the truth)," he said, adding that the issue would affect ties between Malaysia and Indonesia if no action was taken.

He urged for an in-depth investigation to be conducted.

"The minister concerned should also come forward and set the record straight if there is no truth to the allegation," he said.

He said PKR Youth would conduct a fact-finding mission to Indonesian non-govermental organisation Migrant Care who wrote the report after interviewing the victim, as well as to other Indonesian agencies.

The website also quoted Shamsul as saying that PKR Youth member, Badrul Hisham Shaharin - better known as Chegubard - planned to lodge a police report on the issue.

On Monday, Malaysiakini published a story entitled "Alleged rape victim fears minister's reach" in which it quoted a purported letter by the victim's younger sister who wanted justice to be done.

----------------------------------------------
Here is some of the leaked messages thru Wikileaks....
----------------------------------------------

We Are Extremely Concern About The Alarming Increases In Number Of Such Rape And Physical Abuses Incidents Happened In Malaysia Two Years Ago We Failed To Advocate For An Indonesian Maid Who Was Raped By A Minister From Kedah We Wish To Express Our Gratitude Towards The Concern Of Ok Kita Tinggalkan Isu Rais Yatim Pasal Kes Rogol Amah Indon Tu Cuma Kita Nak Tunggu Samada RTM12 Dan 3 Serta Akhbar2 Pencacai Sekalian Nak Mainkan 3 Beberapa Jam Yang Lalu

Pak Lah Covered Up Ministers Rape Case According To Popular Blog Rockys Bru An International Nongovernmental Organisation Had Also Reported That The Alleged Rape Happened In Kuala Lumpur 11 Beberapa Jam Yang Lalu