Many of us have had to endure punishment of various kinds while in school or at home. The same goes for me given my propensity to test the rules and argue my point vehemently. Punishments ranged from being made to write those dreaded 500x “I will behave” lines to standing outside the classroom in the afternoon heat.
However, never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that a student could be punished by washing him/her down in a mortuary like a “corpse” with a hosepipe and camphor while having his face covered with a cloth! This is what reportedly happened to Daniel Iskandar Mohd Nasir, a teenager. He was apparently punished so by the Imam of the mosque for allegedly stealing money from the mosque donation box.
The mosque committee members have come out publicly to justify the Imam’s action saying that they did not see this as a form of abuse and that they wanted to teach the teen a lesson.
Regardless of the mosque committee’s views, did the Imam commit a criminal offence under Malaysia laws by imposing this unusual punishment on Daniel?
Section 352 of the Penal Code makes it a criminal offence for anyone to use criminal force on another person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation. Section 350 defines criminal force as inter alia, the intentional use of force on any person, without that person’s consent, intending by the use of such force illegally to cause / knowing it is likely to cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person who the force is used.
Now, we know from press reports that the punishment was meted out intentionally – the committee members did not deny it and in fact went on to publicly say they have nothing to apologise for.
Well, did Daniel consent to be punished in such a humiliating, if not dangerous way? We don’t know but more likely than not, he did not consent given that no one would want to be punished this way.
Would Daniel have been in fear at the time of the punishment? Well, one could take an educated guess that he was absolutely terrified at what was happening to him.
If the above is true and the facts are proven in a court trial, then the Imam may be convicted for criminal assault under section 352.
Could the Imam argue in his defence that he was under a “grave and sudden provocation” caused by Daniel’s act of stealing? This is not likely to be persuasive, given the age difference and the position of authority that the Imam held vis-a-vis the teenager.
If Daniel had indeed stolen money from the mosque, the Imam should have reported it to the Police. And indeed Daniel has been dealt with by the law – the Shah Alam High Court has sentenced him to 120 hours of community service. The Imam should not have taken the law into his own hands.
What is important here is due process and the upholding of the rule of law. If a police report has been made against the Imam, the Police have a duty to investigate. If evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered during the investigation, then the Attorney General Chambers ought to file charges against the Imam. No one is above the law and this has nothing to do with religion or position in any institution.
While it is uncertain if any criminal action would be taken against the Imam, what is certain is that if at all the Imam is charged and found guilty by a criminal court, he can rest assured that he would not be punished under the law in the same degrading and humiliating manner he punished Daniel.
About the Author
Xavier is a Founding Partner of XK Law. He graduated with Honours from the University of London, United Kingdom. Xavier is passionate about combating injustice and loves doing so though his legal work.
