When stealing is a more serious offence then causing a person’s death

From Clement Stanley

Maybe hardly anyone knows Kamar Mat Sarin or has heard of him.

Perhaps he was just too ordinary for anyone to take notice of a 64-year-old man at the entrance of a supermarket in Klebang, Ipoh.

But someone did notice him: Siti Nuridah Jumli.

The 24-year-old woman, who for reasons best known only to herself, decided to take the law into her own hands and recklessly caused Kamar to die by slapping his face and the back of his head on Oct 25.

Witnesses saw this incident and CCTV cameras captured it as well.

For that, she was not given a jail sentence by magistrate Siti Nora Sharif but a mere fine of RM2,500.

If Nuridah failed to pay the fine, only then would she be jailed for two months.

It must have been a double whammy for Kamar’s family members.

First of all, the “punishment” was no more than a slap on the wrist for Nuridah. Secondly, they would be wondering if Kamar’s life was worth nothing more than RM2,500?

Has anyone heard of Engkapi Keai?

Well, he was a jobless man who stole a handphone from a worker at a construction site when he went there to look for work.

For stealing a handphone because he needed money to pay for his son’s hospital bill, Muar sessions court judge Nariman Badruddin sentenced him to four years and six months in prison.

Engkapi was also fined RM1,000 for the offence. If he fails to pay the fine, he will have to serve an extra month in jail.

Engkapi was charged under Section 392 of the Penal Code for robbery, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a fine.

Nuridah, on the other hand, was charged under Section 304A of the Penal Code for causing death by negligence, which provides for a two-year jail sentence and a fine upon conviction.

This is baffling.

Who loses more in situations like this?

A person who has lost a family member due to a moment of madness by an irresponsible young woman, or the owner of the handphone that was stolen?

No doubt these were two different crimes, but at which point do you temper justice with mercy?

Why is the severity of the crime in the case of Kamar, who died because of the assault, considered minimal in comparison to a stolen handphone?

Engkapi wasn’t stealing because he needed a handphone. He stole the handphone so that he could pay his son’s hospital bill.

It is just so sad and ironic that our justice system chooses to overlook the loss of a life, yet takes umbrage over the loss of a lifeless handphone.

Clement Stanley is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.