PUTERA SYED AHMAD TENGKU TUAN WAN AIDIL.

PM argument

Of course, we should always assume that accusations are false and treat every accuser as a liar right
off the bat. Who needs empathy and support for genuine victims when we can just assume
they're all making it up? It's not like survivors of sexual assault deserve justice or anything.

Innocent Poor accused individuals! Their lives are so precious and delicate. We must do everything in
our power to protect their reputations and careers, even if it means disregarding the rights and
well-being of genuine survivors. Who cares about the trauma they've endured? Let's prioritize
the accused's ability to feed their families over seeking justice for victims. Innocent until proven
guilty, except when it comes to victims, right?

it's important to recognize that sexual assault survivors also face significant trauma and their lives
can be profoundly affected. Striking a balance between protecting the rights of the accused and
providing support to genuine survivors is crucial.

this is a very serious downplay of actual sexual assault. To assume people that accused others for
sexual assaultjust for such minor things, is an insult to the actual victims. Just how hard for a
victim to gather courage to act against the accused, as dlo said actual false accusation is very
rare. It is true the presumption of innocence of the accused must be preserved, but the gov side
states as the victim themselves are the one that trying to ruin the lives of the accused. It’s not!
The public does.

”exposing the accused’s personal data, such as their home address, their bank account, and even
their National ID”

The accuser merely share something that happened to them, and by no means that there are the
one that constantly ruining the accuser life. Leave the blaming from the accuser. The netizen are
responsible for believing what they want or not in the internet. And if the netizen believe the
accusation of the accuser, it is because the accuser has provide convincing evidence to support
the accusation, such as video tape of the event.

“some heartless people have the audacity to accused them of sexual assault, just because
of a minor accidental touch, or even a kind greeting.”
And whether or not the government itself should conduct the legal action, I will refer to DPM
argument. YB kulim stated that by taking legal action we could give fair trial not only to the
accused but also the accuser. I would only agree with the notion if only the accuser itself filed for
a suit. Government should not intervene with the matters. Yes, it is the gov job to preserve order
but this will only worsen the situation. I want to have everyone think for a moment, what if the
accuser is right after the conclusion of the trial and was actually victim of sexual assault. Lets
imagine the headline “gov defended sexual assaulter”. How would the gov reputation sustained
if such thing happened. Imagine the others sexual assault victims that live in this country. “ The
gov will take me to court if I speak up, I don’t want that to happened”. If the justice system itself
failed the people, what do you think will happened to the peace and order that the gov was
tasked to preserve.

DPM argument

- Dpm stated that to give fair trial

- Gov should not intervene, if they want to, conduct legal proceedings, let them be
- Gov is the executive, are not the judiciary (if they don’t know even the basic), we have
procedure.
- How would gov reputation sustained if the public see that the gov was defending sexual
assaulter.
- Public Perception and Trust: Government support for legal actions against sexual assault victims
may generate public backlash and damage the trust between survivors and the justice system. It
might send a message that victims will be penalized for speaking out, undermining the credibility
of their claims and discouraging others from reporting incidents. Rebuilding trust in the system
would be challenging and might require additional resources and efforts.

Gov Whip. Adun Jelebu

“Legal action can secure justice for you whether you are a victim or an accused.”

Main main sikit

Securing Justice: Legal action can indeed secure justice for both victims and the accused. However,
As my fellow opposition team has said, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Adun Klang, it's crucial to
ensure that the legal process is fair, unbiased, and considers the rights and well-being of all parties
involved. It's important to note that false accusations are relatively rare, and the focus should be on
ensuring a thorough investigation and fair trial rather than discouraging victims from coming
forward.
 “Like what i just said you need an incredible amount of evidence to win in case but its a shame to
spit the such false defamation and thinking that people in the society would be suppoort the Amber
Heard.”

Importance of Evidence: Requiring a significant amount of evidence to win a case is necessary to

maintain the integrity of the legal system. However, it's important to recognize that sexual assault cases
often lack direct witnesses or conclusive evidence, making it challenging for victims to meet an
exceptionally high burden of proof. Placing too much emphasis on stringent evidence requirements can
result in legitimate victims being discouraged from seeking justice.

PM ARGUMENT, DPM, ADUN JELEBU

All boil down to false accusation.

DIFFERENT ANGLE

- The financial aspect, legal proceeding expensive

- Kulim go clubbing, with speaker
- Alleged that they use the citizens money to gamble at casino
- On the same note, it is very clear that the speaker of the house has scandalous relationship with
yb kulim, the only thing that would explain the bias of the speaker to the government
throughout this debate.

Ni dulu

- Should focus on more important topic, cars should banned in the city.
- If the government were to support legal actions against sexual assault victims who accuse
attackers online, it would incur additional costs. Legal proceedings can be expensive, involving
court fees, legal representation, investigations, and potential settlements or compensation.
These costs would be borne by the government and could potentially strain their resources.

PM ARGUMENT

I will start on argument of the prime minister, if he actually have one. All I hear is situational
events that were made up just to justified the legal action against the accuser. I understand that
the prime minister trying to say that both accuser and the accused should be heard. But I just
want to ask the prime minister, do you just learn basic law yesterday?
Of course, both of the side will be heard in a legal proceeding, and yet the the prime minister
could not realise that by imposing legal action to the accuser, the victims of the sexual assault
will only be discouraged to share their story, and by the government rationale is it could prevent
false accusation. I will restated the dlo argument, that false accusation is very rare. How many
of people that will suffered from sexual assault would cower in fear just so we could avoid
inconvenience of actually investigating the falsehood of sexual assault accusation. The prime
minister actually suggesting that any victim of sexual assault should keep quiet about trauma
that they had to suffered from the public, is this truly justice?

If the life of the accused is truly ruined by false accusation just like the prime minister said, then
they themselves need to file the suit against the accuser for defamation not the government.
Which I would explain why, while rebutting the argument from dpm,

DPM argument

- Dpm stated that to give fair trial

- Public Perception and Trust: Government support for legal actions against sexual assault victims
may generate public backlash and damage the trust between survivors and the justice system. It
might send a message that victims will be penalized for speaking out, undermining the credibility
of their claims and discouraging others from reporting incidents. Rebuilding trust in the system
would be challenging and might require additional resources and efforts.
- Gov should not intervene, if they want to, conduct legal proceedings, let the accused conduct it
- How would gov reputation sustained if the public see that the gov was defending sexual
assaulter.
-

Last but not least the argument from Yb Jelebu, Dato Faiz, it is true we need strong evidence to
prove any accusation , but let me remind the circumstances here. We are talking about sexual
assault victim. Physical evidence of sexual assault is very hard to come by as the victims may
be afraid to come out with their story. It could take 5 years or 10 before, the victims have finally
take up the courage to tell other people about traumatizing event of their lives. Forcing them to
provide so called “strong evidence” is simply forcing them to relive possibly the most traumatic
event of their lives. It is pretty ironic, Not only the accused had done their harm to the victim, I
guess the government also want to take part in further destroying the miserable lives of the
victims.

But lets not be hypocritical here, lets actually try to apply this in our current situation by not
giving any thought to the sexual assault victims just like the gov did, lets talk about the financial
aspect,which im sure the gov side care a lot.

DIFFERENT ANGLE

- The financial aspect, legal proceeding expensive

- Kulim go clubbing, with speaker

 - Alleged that they use the citizens money to gamble at casino

- On the same note, it is very clear that the speaker of the house has scandalous relationship with
yb kulim, the only thing that would explain the bias of the speaker to the government
throughout this debate.

Ni dulu

- Should focus on more important topic, cars should banned in the city.

- If the government were to support legal actions against sexual assault victims who accuse
attackers online, it would incur additional costs. Legal proceedings can be expensive, involving
court fees, legal representation, investigations, and potential settlements or compensation.
These costs would be borne by the government and could potentially strain their resources.

I once again reaffirm the the opposition stand that we are against the motion taking legal action against
accuser online and by that I end my speech.