UNWANTED headlines refer to negative, embarrassing or controversial news stories about an individual, company or organisation that attract damaging public attention.
Such unwanted attention can lead to a public relations disaster as the incident spreads fast on news and social media, often leading to lost sales, angry customers and public outrage.
This much seems to be the case with an incident involving a 63-year-old customer at the Taman Bangsar 99 Speedmart outlet in Kuala Lumpur on July 24 where the senior citizen claimed that he was wrongly accused of stealing beer.
According to SivaSamy Nagarathinam, he was confronted by several store employees after refusing to accompany them to a room inside the store for a search, insisting instead that they search under the store’s closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras.
As reported in the New Straits Times, the unhappy businessman has since lodged a police report at the Bandar Sungai Long police station on July 26.
Accompanied by his lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan, the businessman claimed he was assaulted, injured and defamed after a video portraying him as a suspected shoplifter went viral on social media.
Elderly man assaulted
Rajesh said the businessman had entered the store to buy several items, including cat food, coffee and drinks, when a staff member accused him of stealing alcohol.
“They twisted his arm behind his back and forced him into the back of the store,where he was allegedly punched in the face, struck on the shoulder with a motorcycle helmet, and kicked and punched several times,” explained the lawyer..
Rajesh claimed that RM850 in cash and a Rado wristwatch worth several thousand ringgit went missing during the incident.
The lawyer said he would issue a letter of demand to the convenience store before filing a civil suit to seek damages for the alleged assault, defamation arising from the viral video and compensation for the missing cash, wristwatch and other losses.
In a media statement, Rajesh and his colleague Sachpreetraj Singh further claimed:
Notwithstanding our client’s denial and despite the fact that our client was still inside the premises, two other employees of the outlet forcibly seized him, dragged him across the premises and struck him in the face, shoulder and even assaulted him with a motorcycle helmet.
Our client was thereafter confined within a storeroom against his will for a period of approximately 20 minutes.
Upon his release, the store manager persisted in the allegation of theft and demanded that the client pay a sum in the region of several thousand ringgit to settle the matter.”
Our client denies these allegations in their entirety. During the course of this incident, employees of the outlet pulled the strap of the client’s sling bag tightly around his neck, causing him severe injury to his neck (this was when the Rado wristwatch and RM850 in cash were taken from him).
Daylight extortion?
There were also calls for the management of 99 Speedmart to preserve the CCTV footage of the incident (which was already reviewed by the police at the scene).
Below are few observations of this incident.
Firstly, the allegations are serious. Not only are there questions of unlawful detention but also of unnecessary force used to detain the suspect.
To add to the murkiness, the elderly shopper claimed there was even an attempt to extort him of a few thousand ringgit to have the matter dropped.
This is NOT just employees using unreasonable force to subdue a suspected shoplifter but acting like gangsters in demanding money to settle matters.
Secondly, if indeed it is proven that this customer has been relieved of his cash and valuables by the said employees, what does it say about 99 Speedmart and the type of employees the convenience store chain is hiring.
Is this the shopping environment that 99 Speedmart wishes to project, one where elderly customers are at risk of being manhandled and then robbed inside the store?
Thirdly, just like the recent fiasco involving a pregnant lady wrongly accused of shoplifting at a Lotus’s outlet, there is a need to have proper SOPs (standard operating procedures) in place to deal with such incidents.
Treating customers like common criminals is NOT a good look.
There is such thing as the presumption of innocence. Staff cannot without proof demand that customers abrogate their rights like demanding the pregnant lady at Lotus’s to expose her belly to prove her innocence or use unnecessary force to apprehend and restrain a senior citizen.
Regardless of whether the customer is belligerent, rude or unruly, the fall-out from a badly handled episode can have leave a lasting negative perception of the brand. – July 29, 2026
