Harassment repeated twice can be deemed stalking under new law

 

Come December, stalking someone on “at least two occasions” would be an offence and punished with up to three years in prison under the Anti-Stalking Bill, said Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Parliament and Law) Mas Ermieyati Samsudin.

The Bill is expected to make it through both houses of Parliament in October and Mas Ermieyati (above, right) said, for the first time in Malaysia, repeatedly stalking someone physically or virtually would be a crime.

She said the bill defines “repeatedly” as “at least on two occasions”.

Mas Ermieyati said this to reporters after her latest engagement with civil society organisations before the bill went through its second tabling in Dewan Rakyat.

Among those present at the meeting were deputy public prosecutor Zilfinaz Abbas and a victim of stalking who had endured harassment from her ex-boyfriend for over three years.

“If both houses of Parliament (lower and upper houses) pass the bill in October, it is likely it would come into effect by December,” Mas Ermieyati added.

Deputy public prosecutor Zilfinaz Abbas

Elaborating, she said the law was worded in a manner that would allow room for investigating officers and the prosecution team to match the elements of proof as criminal offences.

With that, perpetrators could also face a fine or jail time or both, if convicted.

However, the amendments do not stipulate a fine amount and Mas Ermieyati explained that this would be left to the discretion of the court.

It is to note that the law is taking effect after the government introduced amendments to Act 574 which addresses issues such as criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance.

With the introduction of Section 507A to the said law, it would now make stalking an offence.

The bill also introduced criminal liability based on probability, worded as “likely to cause, distress, fear or alarm”.

Descriptions of harassment are also broadened, for example, “communicating or attempting to communicate with a person in any manner or by any means”.

On that note, Mas Ermieyati said, “Descriptions are left open to allow for the elements of proof in each case to be matched as offences under this Act.

The Bill, she added, would also introduce a protection order which could be issued by the court, taking into consideration the victim’s request.

Men being stalked urged to come forward

The deputy minister pointed out that although she had listened to many victims narrating various forms of harassment and stalking behaviour, she had yet to come across victims who were men.

Mas Ermieyati then urged men to have faith in her and advised them to come forward with their cases. 

On a related matter, Zilfinaz explained that many cases got thrown out by the court in the past because elements in the actions could not be matched to the wording of the law.

“We haven’t prosecuted stalking cases but keeping the meaning open will allow the investigating officer to open a case.

“So far, it has been difficult to open an investigation because there was nothing in the law that matched the elements of proof required to prove acts of stalking.

“Hence, these amendments are good because victims can go to a police station and report on being stalked,” she said.

Meanwhile, Association of Women Lawyers (AWL) committee member Meera Samanther, who was present at the discussion, pointed out that the definition of stalking should be broadened to include “continuous acts” and not just limited to “repeated acts”.

Recognise ‘continuous stalking’

“While we gladly welcome the Bill, we have to point out that a number of key issues are missing.

“For example, we feel that the list of acts of stalking should be non-exhaustive and not limited to certain acts.

“It should also include acts like doxxing, interfering, destroying or damaging property, spying as well as cyber stalking,” she said in a written reply together with fellow committee member Abigail Shobana Nimbalker.

Meera added that at present, the protection order issued was only effective until the completion of the investigation - or disposal of criminal proceedings should be extended.

“That is if the court is satisfied that such protection is necessary for the safety of a person or persons.

“The application to set aside a protection order in the law should include a time period of two weeks and the criteria should be at the balance of probabilities,” she explained. - Mkini