Talk:Caning in Malaysia

A few questions about this page

The following occur to me:

1. Different cane widths for different offences. What is the source for that?

2. It states that men over 50 cannot be sentenced to caning. Surely there is a minimum age.

3. It is stated that before he is caned, the prisoner is asked whether a plea bargain has been made. This seems unlikely. Quite aside from whether Malaysian law recognsises plea bargaining, if he is about to be caned, it would suggest that he has already pleaded / been found guilty and been sentenced. Once the court has passed sentence, there can be no question of their being any negotiation with the prosecution or anyone else.

4. Soaking in bleach to increase pain. Where is the source for that?

5. It is stated that if the caning is not completed, " a court appeal" is made to convert it into a prison sentence. What does this mean? Who makes this "appeal"? Also, why is it stated that "The general conversion is generally five or six months' jail term for each remaining stroke"? What is the source for that?

Informed Owl (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl

Dear Owl, I have found a source for (1) and put it in. Some of the other assertions you mention (e.g. soaking in bleach) have now been deleted. It might be that other answers are to be found in the prisons dept document referenced, but unfortunately it is in Malay. Alarics (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Men over 50 are occasionally sentenced to caning, but the sentence would not be carried out. Not sure if convicted of rape makes an exception, though I doubt it is the case. As for the minimum age, I would say that it is the age of 18, the age of majority and liable to be tried at a normal court instead of a juvenile court. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 02:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) No, the law was specifically amended in 2006 to allow rapists aged over 50 to be caned.

(2) Boys aged 10 to 18 may be ordered up to 10 strokes with a light cane. -- Alarics (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

References

I thought that the section on the Kartika case had an excess of references, some of them repeating the same material, they ought to be pruned. I also thought that it might be better to concentrate on Malaysian sources, e.g. The Star, but I have been advised that these are taken down after a while, but e.g. the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times keep theirs online indefinitely. PatGallacher (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. Some of these quotes are not even direct quotes but have been put into reported speech. Even those that have been left unchanged are brief extracts and quite obviously qualify as "fair use". Have you people really nothing better to do? If this policy were applied consistently, about half of Wikipedia would disappear. I am reverting these idiotic edits. -- Alarics (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the material is word-for-word lifting or close paraphrasing from sources without quotation marks. If you actually read our fair use guidelines for text, you will see that fair use is only claimable when quotation marks are used. The material I removed from this article was almost entirely unquoted. This is plagiarism and a copyright violation. Please do not restore without re-writing the content. Direct speech with quotation marks are fine; word-for-word repetition and close paraphrasing is not. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then instead of completely deleting this material, why not just add the inverted commas? -- Alarics (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That would result in over-quoting. And in this case, when dealing with an investigation into an editor who has introduced copyright violations into over 100 articles, wikipedia policy allows for the "indiscriminate removal" of the violations. It is more important to clean the violations up quickly to protect the foundation's legal position than it is to preserve content in the article. By the way from your above comment I assume you resile from your statements that this removal was "idiotic" and done without "any understanding of copyright law". --Mkativerata (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't resile. Newspapers and magazines have always been briefly quoted from all over the place -- by websites, by other newspapers and magazines, by broadcasters, in books. Nobody is ever sued for breach of copyright in these cases because, especially when the source is named as in the present case, anyone with any common sense can see that it is "fair use" (see http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html ). Do you seriously believe that Malaysian Insider is going to sue Wikipedia for quoting a sentence from one of its news reports? Already, it is virtually impossible to include an illustration in a WP article because of the grotesquely overzealous application of rigid rules, with no sensible discretion ever being allowed. Now you are extending the same mindless rigidity to text. If quoting a line or two is over-quoting, and paraphrasing is also unacceptable because it is "close paraphrasing", it becomes almost impossible to write in WP about factual events at all. -- Alarics (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Good editors don't need to plagiarise. Read this in case you need any hints how not to plagiarise. Discussion over for me. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Offences punishable with caning

What offences are punishable with caning in Malaysia?

I know rape, drug smuggling and armed robbery are three examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.42.62 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If the answer isn't in the article somewhere, you might get a better response by asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt they will know anything about it. I will look into it and expand the article when I have time. I do know that by far the largest number of canings is for illegal immigration /overstaying, although these are nearly always a small number of strokes (often just one) and do not get reported much. -- Alarics (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find that Reference Desk people have far more time on their hands than most of us, and will often go looking up sources to find detailed answers to the most arcane of questions, whether they know anything about the topic or not. (Admittedly, sometimes, conversely, some of them will just say the first thing that comes into their head.)

I agree that information on what offences are punishable with caning, and indeed on which offences are punished with caning in practice, would be a very valuable addition to the article.

To wander off onto a tangent slightly, if it were the case that U.S. citizens (for example) are sometimes caned just for overstaying their visas, I would be very surprised if that were not reported on in the USA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course it would be reported if it were a US or other western citizen. In fact, though, it is nearly all illegal workers from Indonesia. -- Alarics (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I came across this question while on RC Patrol and decided to do a little checking. Apparently, caning in Malaysia applies to 60 crimes[1]. Among those are conveying illegal immigrants[2], firearms possession, drug possession and violating the Immigration Act[3], and illegal money lending[4]. I would assume that most of the list is pretty similar to Singapore's list of offenses punishable by caning. 76.105.171.161 (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In Malaysia, is vandalism punishable with caning like in Singapore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.62.234 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't, although it is sometimes suggested that it should be: City Hall proposes caning to curb vandalism -- Alarics (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Indonesia

Why there is no documented caning in indonesia?2404:8000:1027:85F6:E54D:14A:952B:DD7D (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)