Media Statement – 6/11/2024
A Mere RM1,000 Fine, No Compensation for Victim and the failure of the Court to listen first to the sufferings of the Victim before sentencing results in INJUSTICE
Justice was certainly NOT served when the alleged police officer was on 4/11/2024 charged and sentenced to a mere RM1,000 fine for the crime of assaulting a deaf e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong on 28/5/2024, more than 5 months ago, at the front of St Regis Hotel in Kuala Lumpur where Ong was waiting for passengers. The perpetrator, who was said to be a police officer, was a part of a security detail of a member of the Malaysian Royalty, a VVIP.
It is unacceptable that the victim was not informed in advance of the fact that the perpetrator was going to be charged in court. Malaysian law acknowledges the right for a crime victim to be heard before sentence is decided upon and imposed on the perpetrator.
In Malaysia today, one who makes a police report already has the right to be informed on the status of the investigation – and reasonably that right should also include prior information as to when perpetrators of the crime are going to be brought to the court to be charged. It is an important right especially for victims of said crime.
The Failure to Listen to The Suffering of Victim Before Sentencing
The fact that the VICTIM was not even informed of the said court prosecution of the alleged assailant is shocking, as the presence of the VICTIM in criminal cases is important. The victim has the right to tell the Court about the impact suffered by him by reason of the offence, whereby the Court will take into account when it comes to sentencing.
Malaysia’s Criminal Procedure Code in Section 183A clearly states, ‘… (1) Before the Court passes sentence according to law under section 183, the Court shall, upon the request of the victim of the offence or the victim's family, call upon the victim or a member of the victim's family to make a statement on the impact of the offence on the victim or his family…’
The failure to ORDER perpetrator to pay Compensation to Victim
Criminal Procedure Code in Section 426 (1A) states that, ‘…Without prejudice to subsection (1), the Court before which an accused is convicted of an offence shall, upon the application of the Public Prosecutor, make an order against the convicted accused for the payment by him, or where the convicted accused is a child, by his parent or guardian, of a sum to be fixed by the Court as compensation to a person who is the victim of the offence committed by the convicted accused in respect of the injury to his person or character, or loss of his income or property, as a result of the offence committed.
In this case, the victim Ong Ing Keong, besides suffering soft tissue injury following the sudden attack on him with a hard punch on the face, where he later had to get treatment at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital, also would have reasonably suffered loss of income as an e-hailing driver following the incident and in his quest for justice, mental trauma or anguish, and other cost including legal fees. Malaysian law provides that the Court that heard and convicted this assailant could and should have order payment of compensation to the victim. A compensation to be paid to the victim would have been just, for a FINE now is just payment to the State – not the victim.
If the Public Prosecutor, failed to apply to court for the payment of compensation to the victim, it may be an indication of lack of concern or even a dereliction of duty to victims of a crime. Justice demands not just being sentenced for one’s crimes, but also payment of compensation to victim and even maybe also a public apology by the perpetrator to the victim. When a criminal does not apologize, that will lead to higher sentence. A plea of guilt is not an apology to the victim.
When POLICE Breaks the Law, There Should Be A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
Police officers are expected to be law abiding citizens, more so since it is their public duty to enforce the law. Hence, when law enforcement personnel break the law, it is a very SERIOUS matter, and warrants a heavy deterrent sentence.
The Court of Appeal, in its decision ‘We would, however, like to take this opportunity to remind the lower courts that they should take cases of police officers assaulting anyone very seriously. When a police officer, be he of whatever rank, is found guilty of assaulting a member of the public and more so of an arrested person as in this case, the courts should send a message of the public abhorrence of such acts - by coming down hard on him and nothing short of a custodial sentence, even for a first offender, would suffice. [Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor v. PP[2001] 4 CLJ 9]
What about the Other Offences?
In this case, there were allegedly other offences and offenders. There was allegedly a THREAT addressed to the victim to withdraw the first police report. ‘Ong claimed that the palace representative gave him two choices, which was to retract the case and they will return his phone, or go to court…’(Malaysian Insight, 31/5/2024)
When the crime happened, did the other persons, including police officers present, make police report of the crime. Since March 2017, Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes an obligation on ‘Every person aware- (a) of the commission of or the intention of any other person to commit any offence punishable under the Penal Code or any other written law; commission of or the intention of any other person to commit any offence punishable under the Penal Code or any other written law…’.
There are also crimes of obstruction of justice. In short, everyone who committed crimes in connection with the assault or ‘abuse of power’ in Ong Ing Keong’s case must be forthwith charged and tried in court.
In Malaysia, a withdrawal of the police report does not mean the end of the criminal investigation. Once, law enforcement is made aware of the alleged crime, they will proceed with the investigation and/or prosecution of the perpetrator of the crime. It matters not whether the victim subsequently withdraws his/her police report, or comes to some ‘financial’ settlement with the perpetrator. A crime will still be investigated and prosecuted irrespective of any ‘settlement’.
In this case, which has been much highlighted and is known by the public, it should not be ‘swept under the carpet’ with regards to the other crimes committed, by the same and/or other perpetrators.
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) and others have called for special offences for law enforcement officers as they are expected to be law abiding citizens, tasked with the enforcing the law. In this case, the criminal L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik Ismail, was charged, convicted and sentenced under Section 323 of the Penal Code, which is a general offence of voluntarily causing hurt that applies for all persons. Taufik was fined RM1,000 in default of 20 days imprisonment. MADPET is of the opinion that when police or law enforcement officers commit this crime, more so when on duty, they should be subjected to a much higher DETTERENT sentences.
Laws like Section 323 of Penal Code should also be amended, to enable Courts to have discretion to impose higher sentences depending on the facts and circumstances.
MADPET calls on the Prosecution to forthwith appeal the sentence to the High Court, as only the Prosecution, other than the convicted, have the right and ability to appeal the conviction or sentence.
Alternatively, MADPET calls on any High Court Judge to exercise their
general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction in the interests of justice.
Section 35 Courts of Judicature Act states
that ‘…the High Court shall have general supervisory and revisionary
jurisdiction over all subor
dinate courts, and may in particular, but without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, if it appears desirable
in the interests of justice, either of its own motion or at the instance
of any party or person interested, at any stage in any matter or
proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in any subordinate court, call for
the record thereof, and may remove the same into the High Court or may give to
the subordinate court such directions as to the further conduct of the same as
justice may require…
MADPET also call for the immediate termination of L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik Ismail for, amongst other, the restoration of the image and trust in Malaysian police. Any law enforcement officer that breaks the law, more so whilst on duty, is best removed immediately. Police officers on security details of VIPs are also highly trained, and we do not want to retain officers that resort to violence rather than words.
MADPET reiterates the call to enact laws that recognizes the right for persons in Malaysia to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment save in accordance to law.
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Closure for disabled e-hailing driver with bodyguard's sentence, says lawyer
- Nation
-
Monday, 04 Nov 2024
KUALA LUMPUR: After five months, there is finally closure for disabled e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong who was assaulted by a VVIP's bodyguard, says lawyer Zaid Malek.
This comes after L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik Ismail was fined RM1,000 in default of 20 days imprisonment on Monday (Nov 4) after he pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt to Ong in front of the lobby at the St. Regis Hotel at about 11.40am on May 28.
Zaid said the proceedings had taken them by surprise as they were unaware that L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik Ismail would be charged today.
"This is why Ong is not here. But this (outcome) is exactly what he wanted.
“He wanted the aggressor to be brought to court and this had happened today. It was a simple, straightforward case with ample dash-cam recording and medical evidence," Zaid told the press.
Zaid, who held a watching brief for Ong, appeared before the Magistrate during the proceedings.
On Monday, Magistrate Farah Nabihah Muhamad Dan passed the sentence on L/Kpl Muhammad Taufik, 32, who pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt on Ong at the lobby of St Regis Hotel, at about 11.40am on May 28.
The charge under Section 323 of the Penal Code carries a
maximum one year jail term or a fine up to RM2,000 or both upon
conviction. - Star, 4/11/2024
Disability group questions anonymity of policeman charged with assaulting deaf driver, wants case revisited
DAWN says yesterday's court proceeding raises serious questions of integrity while sending a message that violence from the authorities is tolerated.
A prominent support group for the deaf community has expressed disappointment over the outcome of the case involving a police officer who assaulted deaf e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong, and called on authorities to revisit the case as the transparency required by a court is in question.
The Deaf Advocacy and Well-being National Organisation, or DAWN, one of many groups that had been part of a campaign to pressure authorities to charge the attacker, said Ong was never directly notified on the identity of Taufik Ismail, a 32-year-old police officer named as the accused in the charge sheet.
It said the anonymity afforded to the man, who was shielded from the press by several officers throughout his presence at the Kuala Lumpur court complex yesterday, raised serious questions about the integrity of the trial.
"Why was the assailant’s identity protected? Why was the case resolved with such haste? This absence of transparency fuels concerns that some individuals or groups may be shielded from accountability due to their positions," the group said.
"Is Taufik Ismail indeed the individual shown in the CCTV footage from the incident at Hotel St Regis?"
DAWN said without confirmation from Ong or his lawyers, it could not be verified that the right individual had been charged.
"If the authorities are confident in this identification, why was Ong not notified directly?"
"Justice must be seen to be done, and we call for more robust accountability, genuine protection, and fair treatment of all citizens, especially those within vulnerable communities," it added.
Yesterday, Taufik, a police officer who is part of Johor regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim's (TMJ) royal entourage, escaped jail after pleading guilty to assaulting Ong on May 28, in a case that has sparked public debate over the rule of law in the country.
Instead, the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate's Court sentenced him to a fine of RM1,000, a decision criticised by Ong's lawyer Zaid Malek, who compared it to the imprisonment of Abdul Rahim Noor in 2000, after the former inspector-general of police pleaded guilty to assaulting Anwar Ibrahim in 1998.
Zaid had quoted the Court of Appeal's reasoning for imprisoning Rahim despite his guilty plea, in which it stated that it wanted to send a message to the public that the law does not condone police officers assaulting members of the public and that "there should be nothing short of a custodial sentence, even for a first offender, would suffice".
DAWN said the "extraordinarily light punishment" sends the message that violence is tolerated even by those charged with protecting the public.
"For five months, Ong and the deaf community waited, hoping the system would deliver a fair and balanced judgment. However, the outcome has left many feeling overlooked, disrespected, and unsupported by those meant to uphold justice.
It said Ong had suffered psychological distress during the five months that the authorities did not charge the attacker despite video evidence.
"The court’s decision fails to consider the long-term impact on him and the resilience shown by the deaf, the disabled, and broader communities that have stood by Ong.
"This leniency implies that harm done to the public by those in authority may be easily dismissed, setting a dangerous precedent enabling further abuses without meaningful consequence."
Taufik was accused of assaulting Ong at the lobby of the St Regis Hotel in Kuala Lumpur on May 28, an incident that was recorded by Ong's dashcam.
The video showed Ong waiting for passengers when a man shouted at him to move his car to make way for TMJ's entourage.
Ong then rolled down his car window to speak to the man before he suddenly attacked him with a hard punch on the face.
He was later treated at Kuala Lumpur Hospital for a soft tissue injury.
Public outrage increased when it was revealed that a "palace representative" had asked Ong to withdraw his complaint lodged with the Brickfields police station.
Ong rejected a claim by city police chief, Rusdi Mohd Isa, that he had withdrawn his police report as it was a "misunderstanding".
Instead, Ong disclosed that an officer had given him the choice of either accepting a sum of money from the palace representative or having his phone confiscated if the case went to court.
The delay in taking action was also criticised by the government's
Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), which questioned Attorney-General
Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh over his silence. - Malaysia Now, 5/11/2024
Assaulted deaf e-hailing driver wants justice, says his lawyer
A deaf e-hailing driver who was assaulted by a security detail personnel last Monday wants justice and rejects any compensation, said his lawyers.
One of his lawyers, Latheefa Koya, told a press conference today that no one has been arrested over the incident.
This comes just as Inspector-General of Police Razarudin Husain said Bukit Aman will summon all officers involved in investigating the case to ensure a thorough investigation.
He said all those involved in the earlier investigation will have their statements recorded.
Earlier today, Kuala Lumpur police chief Rusdi Mohd Isa said investigation into the alleged assault was still going despite earlier reports that the case was “settled” after the victim allegedly accepted RM800 from a representative of the assailant.
Latheefa meanwhile said the victim did not agree to settle the case.
“The police have called him tomorrow to give his statement to assist with the investigation.
“We will be accompanying him tomorrow. We want the police to carry on with the investigation (wait to conclude) before looking any at legal options,” she said at a press conference in Petaling Jaya today.
Latheefa said that lawyer N Surendran and Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek will be representing the victim Ong Ing Keong.
Earlier today, Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim has hit out at attempts to link the royal institution to the alleged assault of an e-hailing driver.
“I do not condone any illegal action or intimidation. I urge the authorities to investigate thoroughly the incident where a police officer escort is alleged to have committed a harmful act.
“I hope the authorities will take action in accordance with the law and give the victim justice,” he said on X.
On Wednesday, police confirmed that the case involving Tunku Ismail’s bodyguard, who allegedly assaulted a disabled man at a hotel, has been amicably resolved.
Kuala Lumpur police said that was done after they received another report from the complainant late yesterday stating that the matter had resolved the matter amicably, and the victim did not want to prolong the case.
The Malaysian Deaf Advocacy and Wellbeing Organisation (DAWN) in a statement yesterday said it was alarming that the victim was allegedly pressured to settle the case for RM800.
“The victim said he felt pressured to drop the case and be compensated for his injuries instead of pursuing the matter which would see his mobile phone confiscated,” Dawn had said.
“He was told that if he were to proceed with the case, his mobile phone would be confiscated, but if he were to drop it, he would be compensated for his injuries.
“The question remains: how is the phone related to the assault incident?”
The victim had lodged a police report after he alleged he was assaulted at the hotel entrance as the VIP’s convoy was leaving.
Victim’s version
The victim, Ong. gave his version of events today.
He claimed to have accepted RM800 from a wakil istana (palace representative) as settlement when he went to lodge a police report.
“After lodging the report, the police said that a palace representative was coming.
“I then asked (the place representative) where the person who hit me was and he said the person was working.”
Ong claimed that the palace representative gave him two choices, which was to retract the case and they will return his phone, or go to court.
“The representative said they will pay for hospital treatment or go to court over the matter.
“I wanted the handphone, so I decided to drop the case. The officer then asked how much I wanted in compensation.
“They asked me to settle, and I asked for RM1,000. The place representative then gave RM800.”
Ong said that he wants fairness and justice in his case.– May 31, 2024, Malaysian Insight
