By Gobind Singh Deo
The Attorney General should explain what settlement was reached in the case involving a bodyguard of the son of Dato Seri Nazri Aziz and how it was important enough so as to have outweighed public interest so as to justify a non prosecution.
As MP for Puchong, I have received many complaints from residents over security concerns. This is not restricted to condominiums alone but also gated and guarded communities. Even where they engage the services of security guards, they still find people forcing their way in and there are problems. In fact, the security companies have also complained about the failure of the police to act when such incidents do occur.
So, this is not just a private matter between the guards and the assailant. It involves the residents as well. It impacts upon all the residents in the area as it is their security detail which has been compromised. It is a matter of public concern.
Whilst the government says it is serious about fighting crime, it is cases like these which should see stern action taken. A strong signal should be sent out that the law will not tolerate people who obstruct the peace and assault or threaten those who keep the peace.
So, why did the AG find this a fit and proper case not to prosecute? He must explain the special facts in this case which warranted no action being taken. Would the AG have done the same thing if the police had been assaulted instead? What really is the difference?
The AG is supposed to be protecting, and he must protect the public. His priority must be to bring those liable in such cases to book. And he must push for deterrent sentences so as to ensure people can live in peace, knowing that no group of persons can come into their homes, assault their security guards and get away with it.
This decision seems to fly in the face of the current efforts taken by Parliament to strengthen public confidence and to reduce crime. It most certainly does not inspire confidence.
I call upon the AG to review this decision and to correct it. This he is duty bound to do and I reiterate, he must do immediately.
If there is evidence to suggest criminal liability, then action should be taken. If there is none, then the AG should say so and explain. – The Rocket