MALAYSIA is firmly grounded in the rule of law, underpinning its legal system, which aims to maintain public safety and uphold justice by deterring and addressing criminal behaviours.
Indeed, beyond the impact on the victim and public perception, various considerations come into play to ensure that the provisions for sentencing are fair and reflect the complexities of the case, including the maximum punishment under the law charged on the offender and the evidence available to support the case.
However, there are inevitably times when the provisions for sentencing may not satisfy the victims, their families, or the public, leading to questions about whether justice has truly been served.
Three recent cases that garnered public attention
In Ipoh, a 24-year old woman was fined RM2,500 after a supermarket altercation which included slapping an elderly man which led to his death.
She was charged under Section 304A of the Penal Code for causing death by negligence, which carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment or fine or both.
However, legislation needs to consider that a life has been lost: a fine may not wholly reflect against the reality of the senior citizen’s death.
Additionally, a police escort for a VVIP was fined RM1,000 for causing voluntary hurt to a hearing disabled Grab driver.
This incident has traumatised the victim who has been enduring months of fear and psychological distress.
As such, this has raised the same concern in terms of the adequacy in the provisions for sentencing, giving the long-term impact on the victim and the resilience shown by persons with disabilities and the broader community that supported the victim.
In another case, one that is well known to the public, is the suicide of social media influencer A. Rajeswary (Esha).
A woman was fined a mere RM100 for using abusive language on TikTok against her.
Many people considered the comments to be directly linked to Esha’s cause of death, with some going as far as to say the suicide may as well have been a murder.
These aspects of comments intended to cause harm, driving a person to suicide, should be considered.
The provision for sentencing, imposed under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955, calls for an evaluative need of circumstance, context, and modern days’ methods of harm (for example, cyberbullying).
Justice must be seen to be done
When punishments do not properly reflect the suffering experienced by victims, it can lead to a perception among victims, their families, and the public that justice has not been fully served.
This sense of disproportion may result in diminished trust in the legal system and a feeling of injustice.
Addressing these disparities often involves calls for legal reform to align the severity of the punishment with the real-world impact of crimes, ensuring fairness and reinforcing the justice system’s role in serving victims and society.
The provisions in the sentencing need to align with the gravity of the consequences suffered by the victim to ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of the harm and act as an effective deterrent.
Besides, updating outdated laws is essential in the interest of justice and fairness. It allows the legal framework to keep pace with societal changes and adequately address contemporary issues.
Such reforms would help maintain public trust in the legal system and strengthen the perception that justice is being served in a way that respects the impact on victims and promotes accountability.
Additionally, the absence of specific legislation for cyberbullying contributes to disproportionate punishments.
Authorities often rely on the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 or the Penal Code, which were not designed to fully address the complexities of cyberbullying, leading to minimal penalties that do not match the harm experienced by victims.
A reference can be drawn to Singapore’s Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (POHA), which offers a compelling example of targeted legislation, providing individuals with remedies against harassment.
This Act encompasses a broad range of behaviours, including verbal abuse, cyberbullying, stalking, and other forms of harassment including that cause distress. Victims can pursue both civil and criminal actions under this law, ensuring that the penalties are proportionate to the harm inflicted.
A person found guilty of online harassment under the POHA may be liable for a penalty of up to SG$5,000 or up to six months in jail, or both. If the culprit is convicted of a subsequent crime, the punishment may escalate to an SG$10,000 maximum fine or up to 12 months in jail, or both.
There is a pressing need for legal reforms to enhance the criminal justice system’s effectiveness in deterring criminal behaviours and ensuring justice is proportionate to the harm caused. These reforms would protect individuals, reflect the true severity of offences, and reinforce public trust in the legal process.
IVONE LOW YI WEN
Beliawanis MCA National Chairperson
