RAPE - that's what got the House all excited today, at least among the male species.

Several MPs rose to speak on the subject but one was ticked off by a female MP when he went overboard with his 'example'.

The subject was at the centre of the debate on the proposed amendments to the Penal Code relating to sexual offences and the call to include marital rape as an offence.

The amendment bills of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code were up for second reading in Parliament today. The amendments were proposed by a parliamentary select committee after a two-year study.

In his debate, Wong Nai Chee (BN-Kota Melaka) ( right ) called for marital rape - where a husband forces his wife to have sex with him - to be classified as an offence under the Penal Code as an education process, after a similar request by women's groups was turned down by the committee.

"I know it is hard to prove marital rape. For instance, how to prove that a wife is willing (to have sexual intercourse with the husband) on Monday but not willing on Tuesday?" asked Wong, who is also a lawyer familiar with family laws.

He said in most of the instances, children can be called as witnesses.

Gender equality

"However, we should not see the call for marital rape purely from a legal perspective, but we should look at it from an educational and social perspective, which is gender equality," the MP noted, adding that he was disappointed with the non-inclusion of marital rape in the Penal Code.

Elaborating, he said: "In 2001, we were so proud when we amended Article 8 of the Federal Constitution to ensure gender equality but in this amendment, we have missed a golden opportunity to ensure gender equality on the ground of religion."

Wong was referring to the committee's decision not to include marital rape as it is not recognised under Islamic teachings although women's groups have argued that when a husband forces his wife to have sex, that is against the syariah law.

"I beg to differ with the committee's decision because no religion, including Islam, will permit a husband to rape his wife. A woman should not marry a man to the extent that she has to sacrifice her dignity (to be raped by the husband)," he added.

He reminded that rape falls in part under secular laws and thus in the process of enacting the law, it should not take into consideration any religious factor as rape is a "condemned act".

At this juncture, Badruddin Amiruldin (BN-Jerai) interjected and asked Wong's views in instances that a wife 'rapes' her husband. The Jerai MP's suggestion was greeted by jeers from the opposition bench.

"In our laws, rape refers to a man raping a woman. However, if my wife wants to rape me, I am willing," rebutted Wong to laughter from the House.

Open to abuse by wife

Ahmad Zainuddin Omar (BN-Larut), who disagreed with the call to include marital rape as an offence, said if a wife is willing to report to the police about the husband raping her, it shows they do not have a happy family.

However, Wong reminded Ahmad Zainuddin that the issue of marital rape should not be seen as a family problem. It should be regarded as a criminal case, he said.

Seeking clarification, Dr Rahman Ismail (BN-Gombak) expressed concern that a husband who refused to wear condom could be deemed as raping the wife if marital rape is included.

Wong replied that rape is ascertained whether sexual intercourse was carried out with the consent of the woman or not.

As a compromise for not including marital rape as an offence, the committee has proposed to insert a new clause where a husband causing hurt or threatens his wife with death in order to have sexual intercourse may face imprisonment of up to five years.

But Wong described this as a "bad compromise" because it suggested the husband will only be charged for his act of hurting the wife, not the ultimate act of raping.

"This is akin to charging a person who brings flammable objects and burns a house only under possession of flammable objects, not his crime of burning the house," he explained.

Zaid Ibrahim (BN-Kota Baru) ( left ) also agreed with marital rape to be classified as an offence. The senior lawyer argued in his debate that time has changed and men should not treat their wives as property, thus the amendment is timely.

He hoped that the proposal could be included in future amendment of the Penal Code.

Another lawyer by training, Razali Ibrahim (BN-Muar) opined if marital rape be deemed an offence, it could be abused by a wife in a broken marriage to secure an early divorce by accusing the husband of raping her.

Responding to a rebuttal from Chong Eng (DAP-Bukit Mertajam) over women abusing a marital rape provision, Razali argued: "This Bukit Mertajam (Chong) treats everyone as a good person. If everyone is good, then we don't need laws."

Rapist 'tries his luck'

Apart from the argument over marital rape, Wong also said the current proposed definition into aggravated rape is insufficient as he suggested this category should also include rapists identified as HIV/Aids positive.

"Several other situations that should fall under aggravated rape include a mentally challenged victim or an easy target, raping the victim more than one time and taking photos or video recording of the sexual act," suggested the Kota Melaka MP.

The Jerai MP then interjected but found himself in the limelight for the wrong reasons.

"I agree that HIV/Aids-positive rapists be punished severely not just on rape, but with intention to kill. However, there are women who like to be hit ('abused') before having sex, but after that (being 'sexually abused') then she is seronok but she claimed to be raped, how is this?" he asked.

This irked Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) who invoked the Standing Orders and warned the vocal backbencher to substantiate his claim. Fong also requested that Badruddin accords the House due respect.

"Don't use this debate in relation to sexual offences as an opportunity to make fun," said Fong.

As Badruddin insisted there were such cases, deputy speaker Lim Si Cheng tried to restore order, indicating that the Jerai MP was merely giving an example.

Two categories

Continuing his debate, the Kota Melaka MP pointed out another definition of aggravated rape which was inappropriate as it defined "at the time of the offence the woman was pregnant".

"It is obvious if the woman is nine months' pregnant, but what if she is just nine weeks? There is no sign of pregnancy. So the rapist is just like trying his luck; if he unfortunately rapes a pregnant woman, then he will be punished under aggravated rape for up to 30 years," he said.

Under the proposed amendments, offences related to rape will be in two categories in order to allow the courts not to be bound by the minimum five-year jail term.

For those convicted of rape, they could face up to 20 years in jail and/or whipping. For those convicted of aggravated rape, their jail terms can extend up to 30 years with a minimum of five and/or whipping.

Aggravated rape is when the victim is hurt or put in fear of death; rape in the company and presence of other persons; rape of those below 16 years of age without consent; rape of those below 12 years with or without consent; rape a pregnant woman and rape by those in a position of authority irrespective of consent.

The debate continues on Monday.