Is piggy-backing an indecent act?


If it is illegal for the Chinese boy to piggy-back his girlfriend, it might be an over-interpretation of the local government law, or the rights of non-Muslims might have been violated if the law is enforced based on a religious perspective.

Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily

The fatal point is always targeted when one launches attack against his or her enemy.

The recent summonses issued by Kota Baru Municipal Council officers to non-Muslims have been turned into the target of attack by the MCA and the Gerakan.

Six Negeri Sembilan Gerakan state assembly members visited the E-Life Hair Salon, where summonses were issued to the female hairstylists for providing services to male customers last month. They were expecting enforcement officers to turn up and issue them summonses.

It seems like the issue will continue to develop as the Gerakan has threatened to return to Kota Baru next month with its members in swim suits to swim in a swimming pool. Would the MCA be inspired and holds a sunbathing event or has its male members piggy-back its female members in Kota Baru?

Before the hair salon incident is settled, the so-called summonses for indecent behaviours have again issued. Kelantan state exco member Datuk Anuar Tan Abdullah is right, other states are indeed having similar local laws to prohibit indecent conducts in public places.

If some people are found to have performed indecent acts, law enforcement officers will then have the right to issue summonses based on the Akta Undang-undang Kecil 1986. However, what is the definition and scope for indecent conducts? This is the focus of debate.

On 11 June 2003, a pair of Chinese couple was issued a summon by three Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) enforcement officers for “indecent behaviour” in the KLCC park and on 2 August, another pair of Chinese couple was also issued a summons for the same offence at the same place. The two officers involved were then suspended for investigation after the incident created an uproar in the society.

The then controversial point was whether holding hands an indecent behaviour. Today, the controversial point of the Kota Bar incident is, whether piggy-backing is also an indecent act.

As Kelantan PAS Supporters Congress adviser Jeff Lee Weng Chun said, only kissing, fondling, nudity and having sex at open space should be considered as indecent behaviours. So, what is wrong for a non-Muslim to piggy-back his girlfriend while jogging in broad daylight? The 17-year-old Chinese boy also clarified that they were just fooling around and did nothing indecent.

If it is illegal for the Chinese boy to piggy-back his girlfriend, it might be an over-interpretation of the local government law, or the rights of non-Muslims might have been violated if the law is enforced based on a religious perspective.

Any excessive enforcement of law should be condemned to prevent law enforcement officers from imposing their own values on the public, or restricting non-Muslims with religious ordinance.

Another controversial point is, would there be a deviation if law enforcement officers are not required to show evidence when enforcing law? For example, two Chinese men receiving summonses issued by a Kota Baru Municipal Council officer denied that they had performed indecent behaviour and insisted they were only chatting inside a car while watching planes land in the night. One of the men’s relatives even claimed that the officer had asked money for “settlement”.

Jeff Lee also pointed out that the summonses of the two incidents were issued by the same officer, who is an administrative assistant of the council, not a law enforcement officer.

The Kelantan state government should clarify the doubts to prove that PAS is ruling fairly.

Meanwhile, the Pakatan Rakyat should guide the people to focus on important national issues and it is indeed unwise to leave the growth of local issues!

 



Comments
Loading...