IndexIntroductionCheating is Getting Worse in China: ImprisonmentMalaysia: No Express Provision for CheatingIdentity Theft Cheating in IndiaCheating: Influence on Criminal LawConclusionWorks CitedIntroductionCheating is getting worse? Cheating on the exam and impersonating someone to take the exam are always big problems in the education sector. However, institutions are not willing to take these types of cases to court and punish traitors with disciplinary offenses. It is undeniable that there is a gap in our Malaysian Penal Code because there is no express provision of law that can bring legal action against exam cheaters and punish them according to the Penal Code. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Cheating Gets Worse in China: Imprisonment As of November 1, 2015, exam cheating is criminalized and penalized in China. Examination cheating shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and not more than seven years or by a fine after an amendment has been made to S.284 of the Amendment (IX) to the Criminal Law of the Republic Chinese folk. Furthermore, the amendment also penalizes those who help to fake the exam through false identity or by selling exam questions or exam answer sheets. There was a case in Beijing where Zhang Wuya and five conspirators were found guilty of providing the exam answer sheet using wireless equipment. Lu Shilong, one of the conspirators, took an MBA exam at Beijing University of Chemical Technology and participated in cheating. Meanwhile, Zhang Xiayang, one of the conspirators, took a national postgraduate entrance exam at Communications University of China and also cheated in the ideological and political theory exam. The judge found that the number of candidates involved was large, that the size of the organization was also large and that this fraudulent behavior had seriously disturbed the normal conduct of examination activities and that the social damage was serious. Therefore, by applying the modification, they were punished with imprisonment from twenty months to four years. From this case and the amendment, we can see that China has taken cheating as a serious problem and the law is enforced to penalize cheaters and those who help cheat. Malaysia: No Explicit Provisions for Cheating In Malaysia, the Penal Code (PC) has no explicit provisions to punish the student who commits cheating during the exam. However, this act is governed by Educational Institutions (Discipline of Students) Rules R.7A, 1976 (1976 Rules) which prohibits students from cheating in the examination. According to R.73 of the 1976 Rules, a student is liable for a disciplinary offense if he breaches any of the rules under the 1976 Rules. R.48 of the 1976 Rules allows the disciplinary authority to punish those who commit a disciplinary offense with reprimand , fine less than RM500, suspension from using the facilities or attending the course for certain periods, disqualification from taking the examination or expulsion from the Institution. This means that if a student was involved in cheating, they would normally be punished by warning, expulsion or suspension from school, unlike China's punishment of imprisonment under criminal law. This is why cheating is so prevalent in the education sector in Malaysia. It is because the punishment is not severe enough to act as a legal impediment to dissuade students from cheating on the exam. In fact, fraudexamination may be criminally prosecuted under S.415 of the PC and punishable under S.417 of the PC. Cheating in the examination may fall within the meaning of S.415(a) of the PC because a cheater may deceive the teacher with the intention of making ill-gotten gain or with the intention of defrauding the teacher, so that the teacher induced by this deception gives the highest grade to those who cheat on the exam. This “higher grade” not only allows the student to pass the exam but also a certificate which may constitute “property” under S.415 of the PC. Furthermore, cheating during the exam may also fall within the definition of cheating under S.415(b) of the PC. It may be applicable in the situation where a student commits exam cheating, the university or school will definitely suffer reputation loss as such act also involves disciplinary issues, thus leaving the institution with a bad image. Since cheating in the exam falls within the meaning of cheating under S.415 of the PC, so taking the example of China, the court should punish those who cheat in the exam under criminal law rather than disciplinary law. Furthermore, S.417 of the PC provides punishment for fraud which includes imprisonment which may extend up to 5 years, a fine or both. Therefore, S.417 of the PC may serve as a better legal impediment than R.48 of the 1976 Rules to deter students from cheating in the examination. Under this interpretation of the law, cheating on the exam can also be punishable by imprisonment. Impersonation Cheating in India There are many Indian cases involving impersonation cheating in the education sector. For example, in the case of Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy alias Kaza Krishnamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant was held liable for defrauding the state government under S.416 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by impersonating Kaza Krishnamurthy and falsely claiming to own the MBBS degree where in fact he didn't have one. This deception had led the Madras Public Service Commission (the commission) to recommend his appointment to the post of surgeon to the state government. As a result of the deception, the Government was deceived by the appellant into claiming that he was qualified for the post and subsequently appointed him as surgeon and paid his salary. Therefore, the appellant had committed the offense of cheating under S.415 OF IPC by deceiving the State Government by dishonesty or fraud to procure him an employment opportunity and deliver his salary. Similarly, in the case of Aswini Kumar Gupta v Emperor, the accused was liable under S.415 and S.468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defrauding the registrar of a university by impersonating a candidate to support the exam and falsifying the answer sheet as loss of reputation has been caused to the registrar and the university. Cheating: Influence on Criminal Law In contrast, there are not as many cases in Malaysia compared to India in relation to the crime of education fraud because the case is charged under other branches of law rather than the Criminal Code. For example, in the case of Majlis Peguam Malaysia v Yap Min Ch'ng, an application relating to the registration of lawyers and barristers was made. Nonetheless, the Bar Council stated that the appellant had pretended that Jerry Hong took the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) examination, thereby committing the crime of identity fraud under S.416 of the PC. The question was whether the character of the applicant was good. The court acquitted the appellant because there was no evidence to show that the appellant had bad character and had committed cheating by impersonation. From this issue, we can see that the court has focused/1017657/