The Perak State Legislative Assembly representative (ADUN) for Hulu Kinta, Muhamad Arafat Varisai, was embroiled in a shocking controversy recently after he was accused in a video by an individual named Kalai of brandishing a firearm during PKR branch-level elections on 13 April. The video has since gone viral and been shared by many public social media pages, including this one by Perak Kini, with the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) receiving a report on the alleged incident at 12.28pm on the same day.
As reported by Sinar Harian, Arafat has since denied the allegation and labelled it nothing more than slander for political gains. Meanwhile, Perak Police Chief Datuk Noor Hisam Nordin was quoted by Bernama as saying that they will be recording a statement from the Hulu Kinta ADUN over the allegations, with eight witnesses already coming forward to give their statements.
The incident allegedly took place at a community hall in Taman Indah, with Kalai claiming that Arafat brandished a firearm to intimidate his rival in the PKR polls for the party’s Tambung branch and their followers.
So, what actions may the Hulu Kinta ADUN face should the allegations be found to be true? Below are the relevant laws on the matter.
Sections 503 and 506 of the Penal Code
According to the Perak Police Chief, the case is being investigated under criminal intimidation. As per Section 503 of the Penal Code below, an individual is considered to have committed criminal intimidation if they threaten another with any injury or to threaten their reputation or property, or to the person of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to:
- Cause alarm to that person
- Cause that person to do any act which they are not legally bound to do
- Cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do
Meanwhile, Section 506 of the Penal Code attached below prescribes the punishment for criminal intimidation, which is imprisonment of up to 2 years or a fine or both. Furthermore, the punishment would be imprisonment of up to 7 years or a fine or both, if the threat is to:
- Cause death or grievous hurt
- Cause the destruction of any property by fire,
- Cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment
- Cause an offence punishable with up to 7 years in jail
- Impute unchastity of a woman
As the brandishing of firearms can be argued to be a threat of causing death or grievous hurt to another, should the Hulu Kinta ADUN be convicted of criminal intimidation, he may face the more severe punishment of the two mentioned above.
Section 32(2) of the Arms Act 1960
Given that the incident includes the alleged brandishing of a firearm, Section 32(2) of the Arms Act 1960 below may also apply to the case.
As per the provision, anyone who has in their possession any firearm or imitation firearm during the committing of any offences specified in the Act’s First Schedule, unless they had it in their possession for a lawful purpose, may face up to 10 years in jail on top of the punishment prescribed for the offences mentioned in the First Schedule.
For reference, Section 506 of the Penal Code is part of the Arms Act 1960’s First Schedule.
Hence, should Arafat be convicted of criminal intimidation under the Penal Code and fail to prove the alleged possession of a firearm is for a lawful purpose, he may face up to 10 years in jail on top of the punishment under Section 506 of the Penal.
Other relevant offences under the Arms Act 1960 and the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971
Besides that, should the alleged firearm brandished was found to be in the Hulu Kinta ADUN’s possession without an arms license or permit, he may face action under Section 8 of the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 below.
According to the provision, any person who is convicted of unlawfully having in their possession a firearm may face imprisonment of up to 14 years and a minimum of 6 strokes of whipping
Furthermore, Section 12 of the Act prescribes that no bail shall be granted to an accused person charged under Section 8 or any other offences under the Act unless there is a written law or any rule of law to the contrary.
It should also be noted that under Section 3 of the Arms Act 1960 below, it is prohibited for anyone to possess, carry or use firearms or ammunition without an arms licence or permit.
Of course, these are all theoretical as PDRM is still investigating the incident as of the time of writing. In the meantime, it’s best for everyone to remain calm and let the law run its course.
In the meantime, do share your thoughts about the whole situation in the comments!
Jamie is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
