A vulgar statement left by a patron of a fast food restaurant in Bukit Mertajam, Penang in the ‘remarks’ section of an online order received the ire of Malaysians recently, prompting a worker at the restaurant to lodge a police report on the incident.
A photo of the online order receipt has since gone viral online, showing that it was made by a company located in Perai, with the perpetrator saying, “Islam is s*** & p**” in the remarks section.
According to a report by NST, Seberang Prai Tengah district police chief Assistant Commissioner Helmi Aris confirmed that it had received a police report from a male worker of the restaurant on 13 September on the matter. Accordingly, the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) launched an investigation into the incident for the insulting remarks by the irresponsible customer.
Well, the individual responsible for the lewd remarks should brace themselves as such an act is clearly an offence in several laws in Malaysia and has no place in this multiracial and multi-religious country we call home.
Read on to find out more about the potential charges and punishments the perpetrator could face once they are apprehended and convicted.
Section 298 of the Penal Code for wounding the religious feelings of others
One of the most relevant legislation on the incident has got to be Section 298 of the Penal Code below as the perpetrator's statement clearly wounds the religious feelings of individuals in Malaysia:
Section 298 clearly establishes that it is an offence for anyone to utter any word with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person. Given that the remark left behind is clearly an insult to the religion of Islam, it can be argued that the perpetrator has fulfilled the criteria for them to be charged under this provision.
Should they be charged and convicted under this provision, they may face imprisonment of up to 1 year, a fine or both.
Section 504 of the Penal Code for intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace
Besides that, another Penal Code provision applicable to the case is Section 504 for the intentional insult to provoke a breach of the peace below:
Applied to the case at hand, the perpetrator can be argued to have intentionally insulted and provoked those professing the religion of Islam in the country while knowing that it would likely break public peace.
Hence, should they be charged and convicted under this provision, they may face imprisonment of up to 2 years, a fine or both.
Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955 for insulting behaviour
Another charge that the perpetrator could face is under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955 below for insulting behaviour:
Unlike the previous two though, this provision doesn't prescribe any imprisonment for offenders, with those convicted facing only up to RM100 fine.
Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for offensive communication
The perpetrator may also face action under Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for improper use of network facilities or applications to make an obscene communication below:
Specifically, it can be argued that the perpetrator has committed an offence under Section 233(1)(a) by using the means of a network facilities or network service or applications, in this case, the online application used to order from the restaurant, to make a comment which is obscene, indecent, meaning or offensive in character with the intent to harass another individual.
Should they be charged and convicted under this provision, the perpetrator faces up to 1 year in jail, a fine of up to RM50,000 or both.
Furthermore, they may also be liable to a further fine of RM1,000 per day if the offence is continued after conviction.
These are prescribed under Section 233(3) of the same Act below:
However, do note that as of the time of writing, PDRM said that they're only investigating the incident under Section 298 of the Penal Code and Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955. It is now up to the investigation officer to recommend any other legal provisions during the charge, if any, of the individual in court. Ultimately, it's then up to the Attorney-General Chamber (AGC) to decide on the best charge(s) based on the investigation findings.
With all of the above established, it's important for everyone to remain calm and not take action into their own hands. Instead, have some trust in our legal system and let the law run its course and with it, hopefully, justice.
So, what do you guys think of this appalling case? Do share your 2 cents in the comments section!
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 Newswav.
