Now Every Elite Can Punch And Get Away With Just Rm1000 Fine Anwar S Awesome Justice For Deaf Grab Driver

---

 Finally, after more than five months since a deaf Grab driver, Ong Ing Keong, was assaulted and punched by a bodyguard of Johor regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, popularly known as TMJ, the much awaited justice has been served. Lance Corporal Muhammad Taufik Ismail, 32, admitted to the charge of voluntarily causing hurt to 47-year-old Ong, but got away with a slap on the wrist.
 Magistrate Farah Nabihah Muhamad Dan only dared to slap the despicable royal police escort with a fine of RM1,000, even though under Section 323 of the Penal Code, she could deliver a prison term of up to one year and a fine of up to RM2,000 to teach the Johor royal bodyguard, who shamelessly punched the defenceless e-hailing driver with disabilities, a lesson.
 But if even Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, supposedly the most powerful man in Malaysia, was too afraid to offend the Johor Crown Prince, whose father Sultan Ibrahim has been crowned as the 17th Agong (King) in January this year, who is a junior ranking judge to deliver a punishment that could humiliate the Sultanate of Johor? In fact, the pathetically RM1,000 fine was an insult to the independence of the Judicial.
Mr Ong, like any other e-hailing drivers, was just trying to make a living at about 11.40 am on May 28, 2024 outside the St. Regis Hotel lobby in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur. The only difference is the Grab driver is deaf. But he isn’t blind, hence he’s perfectly fit to work. He was waiting to pick up four passengers at the posh hotel, but all hell broke loose when a VVIP entourage was leaving the hotel lobby.
 The VVIP turned out to be Johor Crown Prince Tunku Ismail. Apparently, one of the crown prince’s bodyguards knocked on Mr Ong’s car window and asked him to move his vehicle. Due to his disability, Ong was unable to comprehend their hand gestures. He then lowered his window and gestured using sign language, only to be greeted with a sudden punch in the face by Muhammad Taufik.
As a result, the disabled man sustained soft tissue injuries and was treated at Kuala Lumpur Hospital. Still, amazingly, the Grab driver professionally completed his task – dropping off his passengers at the destination despite with swelling on his face. The entire incident was captured in the dashcam. He thought he could easily seek justice with all the evidences.
The deaf man then made a report at about 1pm on the same day after the assault at the Brickfields police station. Unfortunately for him, Royal Malaysia Police – arguably one of the most corrupted institutions in the country – has different standards for the elite and ordinary folks like Ong Ing Keong. He should thank God that he managed to come out alive in one piece from the notorious police station.
 It immediately raised a red flag – and a cover-up – when there was a contradiction within the police force. While the head of the Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department (CID) confirmed that an investigation was underway, the Kuala Lumpur police chief Rusdi Mohd Isa proudly declared that the matter had been “settled amicably” – claiming that the disabled man did not wish to prolong the issue.
 The disgraced KL Police Chief was clearly working hand-in-glove with the royal house bodyguards to intimidate, bully and even threaten the poor victim when it claimed Mr Ong lodged a second report at about 9:59pm on the same day of the incident to close the case. But thanks to the Malaysian Deaf Advocacy and Well-being Organisation (DAWN), it quickly becomes a scandal.
As revealed by DAWN secretary-general Anthony Chong, there were four reports lodged, with three prepared by the cops. Stunningly, while the deaf Grab driver had lodged only one report, the police mysteriously cooked up three extra dubious reports and had Ong signed without fully understanding what were being written. The most damaging part – Johor palace representative was present at the police station
What really happened on the day after the deaf man was assaulted by the royal bodyguard? When the police received Ong’s report that it was the Johor Crown Prince’s bodyguard who had beaten him, he was asked to show proof. After showing a video on his phone, he was asked to undergo a medical examination, during which he was asked to rush back to the police station on the same day (May 28, 2024).
 The purpose was to forward the video so that the superior of the Brickfields police station could review the contents. However, in what appeared to be a sign of police intimidation, the disabled man was escorted to the police officers’ office and left unattended for hours upon arrival at the police station between 5pm and 6pm. He was asked to surrender his phone and treated like a suspect.
When the victim, still shocked after being punched by the Johor Crown Prince’s bodyguard, asked for his phone in order for him to contact his wife and a friend, his request was flatly rejected. Not only was the police acted like a brutal gangster, but was also inhumane as Ong was still in mourning after his child had passed away about three weeks prior to the incident. 
 Worse, no sign language interpreter was offered – suggesting that the police might have malicious intentions from the beginning by shutting down transparency. Ultimately, the deaf man was given two options – to proceed with the case or to drop the case. However, if he chooses to go to court, his phone would be confiscated. He will be compensated if he drops the case.
 It’s not rocket science that the police, together with the palace, were offering bribes to silence the Grab driver, and threatened to make his life difficult if he dares to go to the court. Under pressure, as any ordinary people would be under such circumstances, the Grab driver agreed to drop the case. This is a criminal case – the police have no business conspiring with the royal house for a settlement.
Only after the deaf victim – reluctantly – agreed to drop the case that the police released his identity card, obviously another intimidation tactic. Upon collecting his identity card, he was asked to sign a third police report. He was so confused that he could not tell the difference between the second and third report. But he certainly remembers one thing – the Johor Palace was a freaking cheapskate.
 Yes, the palace representative was so cheapskate and pathetic when he tried to negotiate on the asking price of RM1,000. Like a night market haggling, the compensation finally settled at RM800 after Mr Ong refused to accept RM500. But Lawyers for Liberty said there was no such thing as a “settlement” of a criminal case between the perpetrator and victim of a crime.
 Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek said – “Once the police receive information regarding commission of an offence, they are duty-bound to investigate the matter. Section 3(3) of the Police Act 1967 tasks PDRM (Royal Malaysia Police) with the preservation of the peace and security of Malaysia, the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.”
The simple fact that the palace representative was willing to pay (or rather bribe) was the clearest proof that the bodyguard had committed a crime, which the police shamelessly tried to help covering up by seizing the disabled man’s phone and even his vehicle’s dashboard camera. It’s not hard to see how they have planned to destroy evidence should the victim go to the court.
 Interestingly, while Johor Crown Prince Tunku Ismail said that he “does not condone illegal action or intimidation” and urged authorities to investigate the matter thoroughly, he hilariously claimed that there is a “movement” to smear the royal institution’s reputation. Exactly how could his royal house be tarnished when the brutality of his bodyguard has been recorded in dashcam?
A popular Chinese idiom says “one needs to know who the master of the dog before beating it”. It means before punishing someone, one should consider how that punishment would affect others associated with him. If you still hadn’t a clue, it means the gangster bodyguard was supposed to be untouchable because his master is the royal house, which would be humiliated if he is punished.
On June 5, 2024, Inspector General of Police (IGP) Razarudin Husain announced the police have sent the investigation papers on the assault of the e-hailing driver to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. But as expected, there had been silence after the Royal Malaysia Police passed the ball to the AGC. Even the government was trying to avoid, evade and run away from the issue.
 Amusingly, even Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil has been trying very hard to refrain from addressing questions regarding the assault involving the Johor Monarch. When Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was finally cornered under pressure, the biggest cheerleader of “rule of law” tried to insult the people’s intelligence with a laughable excuse – the case “takes time”.
 Anwar’s attempt to beat around the bush was quickly mocked and ridiculed as if the simple case was more sophisticated and complicated than multi-billion dollar 1MDB scandal. If the coward premier was too chicken to even tell the monarch that their bodyguards must face the same rule of law like everyone, imagine where he would go hide should the royalty beat or kill an ordinary folk on the street?
Even if Anwar Ibrahim, the president of PKR, had forgotten (or pretends to have forgotten) why his political party is called the People’s Justice Party to begin with, he should remember how former Inspector-General of Police Abdul Rahim Noor assaulted and slapped him twice in police custody, leaving him with a “black eye” in 1998. He must have felt delighted to be beaten in such splendid fashion. 
Is Anwar so power-hungry that he would rather kiss the hands of the royal household? Between a gangster policeman and a deaf Grab driver, the choice isn’t hard. Not only justice is delayed and not seen to be done, but the insane punishment actually sends the wrong message – now everyone with power can punch anyone they dislike, and get away with just RM1,000 fines. - financetwitter
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---