The Bar Council has clarified its position on a proposed amendment to the definition of aggravated rape. This comes in the wake of criticism calling the council's stance as 'chauvinistic'.

Its president Yeo Yang Poh said today the legal profession body acknowledged the seriousness of rape committed by a person in a position of authority to obtain sexual favours without genuine consent.

"We, however, find the wordings of the proposed definition maybe too wide and this may inadvertently capture situations that are not supposed to be covered," he told malaysiakini.

Yeo said, as such, the council - which represents some 12,000 lawyers in the country - did not oppose to the proposed definition per se but would like a review of the wordings.

On the council's reported view that the new amendment could be abused by women to 'fix up' their former boyfriends who refuse to marry even to blackmail him, Yeo responded:

"That is one of the concerns raised, but it is not the focus (of our discussions). There are various concerns that we need to address."

Redundant claim

The council's reported stance in opposing the proposed definition of rape by those in position of authority under the category of 'aggravated rape' in the Penal Code has elicited criticisms.

The definition reads in part: "... with her consent, when the consent is obtained by using his position of authority over her or because of a professional relationship or other relationships of trust to her".

The new category of 'aggravated rape' was introduced by the parliamentary select committee in its report released in late April after a two-year review on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.

During a roundtable meeting held to discuss the report on Wednesday, criminal lawyer V Sithambaram, representing the council, said it was against the amendment because it was redundant.

This, he said, was because the exiting law already defines rape as sexual intercourse against a woman's will. He said the new clause could be easily abused by women should a relationship turn sour.

Sithambaram added that the council viewed the proposed amendment as "obviously designed to appease the women's rights groups" who have been insistent on such an amendment.

Devious offenders, crafty lawyers

DAP Seputeh MP Teresa Kok in a statement yesterday described the council's comments as 'chauvinistic' and regretted the council did not see the intention of introducing the new clause.

"(The council) failed to see the need for Parliament to address new issues related to rape where the victims were forced to give consent though rape has taken place," she said.

Kok, who is also a member of the select committee, said there were cases where a policeman used his authority to force a female detainee to have sex with him.

Another example she cited was a 'bomoh' (medicine man) or monk who used his 'professional relationship' with a woman when she sought help from him for sex, and similarly a doctor with a patient.

"There is a great need to amend our laws to close any loophole that could be exploited by devious offenders and crafty lawyers," she added in her statement.

The MP said the Bar Council should recognise the fact that many rape victims dare not come forward to report rape due to various social pressures and there is need to protect these vulnerable victims.

The council's objection to the proposed amendment was also met with disagreement by local human rights watchdog Suaram and women's group Women's Development Collective (WDC).

Suaram said the new clause was needed because there were many cases where employees were coerced into having sex with their employers.

WDC argued there was a 'low chance' of women 'crying wolf' or abusing the amendment and even if it happened, the prosecution would have to prove its case in court.