Now when Shabudin goes around, he will carry a big pile of parliamentary documents with him. He was trying to prove that he never passed any such remarks.
He was very serious and felt offended when the media reported that such remarks did come from him.
The young females who were raped “can” marry their rapists.
The young females who were raped “should” marry their rapists.
By marrying the victims to their rapists, it is a way to solve the social problem.
He claimed innocence and denied passing such remarks. He accused the media of taking his speech out of context.
I asked those who had scolded him to study again whether they had accused him wrongly or not.
In his debate, the main objective was to clarify various marriage arrangements of teenagers under the Syariah law which included the issue of the victim marrying to the rapist.
His view on the arrangement of marrying the victim to the rapist was affirmative and he supported it but the arrangement should fulfill certain pre-conditions including the approval of the Syariah court.
We should be fair to him by saying: This idea and arrangement is not his, not his out of his creativity. The practice has already been existed in the society and he was just commenting and supporting the idea.
When the media reported on his comment it was slightly different from what he had said. Nevertheless the context was not very much different.
He should not blame the media because his comrades in the parliament also criticized him strongly. Did those lawmakers also take his speech out of context?
An old Chinese saying goes like this: He can never clear his reputation even though he jumps into the Yellow River. It is very difficult for him to dissociate himself with the label of “Rape first marry later”.