LAST Wednesday (Aug 14), N. Surendran – the lawyer of deaf-mute e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong – questioned why no action had been taken against the bodyguard of a royalty who allegedly assaulted Ong two-and-a-half-months ago.
Ong had lodged a police report on the matter soon after the incident on May 28 but nobody has yet to be brought to book despite the assault being recorded on his vehicle’s dashcam.
Surendran who happens to be the Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) adviser – and the Malaysian public – were rightfully perplexed with the delay in what should have been an open-and-shut case.
Following this exposé, the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Razarudin Husain said that action had been taken against the perpetrator through the force’s internal disciplinary procedures. Razarudin did not disclose what those actions were or their basis.
The explanation, however, did not appease the public who were incensed over how a police personnel could escape prosecution or get away with a slap on the wrist especially since the victim was a special needs person trying to make a honest living.
But just as the media interest on this case started to die down, the IGP disclosed on Sunday (Aug 18) that the internal disciplinary action against the alleged attacker had nothing to do with the assault against Ong. Instead, the culprit was disciplined for failing to declare assets.
That being the case, why did Razarudin not clearly state so when he first disclosed about the disciplinary action taken against the bodyguard?
At that point in time, public interest was on the police’s next course of action against the perpetrator. The public had almost zero interest in whether one of the men in blue failed to declare his or her assets.
How is disclosing the bodyguard’s failure to declare his assets relevant to the assault case?
When the country’s top cop disclosed that disciplinary action had already been taken against the bodyguard without disclosing the reasons, the public can only assume that it was due to the assault given the media coverage surrounding the issue at that material time.
And why did Razarudin take four days to clarify that the disciplinary action against the bodyguard had nothing to do with the assault?
For now, it may be presumptuous to accuse the IGP of deliberately misleading the public although Malaysians can be forgiven for assuming that Razarudin was referring to the assault against Ong when disclosing that disciplinary action had been taken against the bodyguard.
Perhaps Bukit Aman, in particular the IGP’s Office, can do with better media management because there’s another assault taking place: the one against the good image of the force and that of the IGP’s. – Aug 20, 2024
