Businessman mulls suing govt, police for unfair detention
SIBU: Businessman Ting Hock Lung, 51, is seeking to file a writ against the police and the Malaysian government for unfairly detaining him for 40 days under Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(2)(a) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959, from Feb 2 until April 1.
As a result of the detention, Ting claimed of suffering humiliation, embarrassment and damages to his reputation.
“I am leaving the case to my legal counsel to take further action,’ he said at the press conference here yesterday morning in the presence of his legal counsel Yap Hoi Liong.
His wife Sia Mee Kai, daughter Annie Ling and Yap’s legal partner Wong Yee Ping were also present.
Ting, who operates a grocery store at Sungei Merah, said he was first detained on Feb 11 under Section 457 of the Penal Code, and was remanded for one day before being released on Feb 13.
“However, on Feb 21, the police detained me again under Section 4(1)(a) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959, and remanded me for 21 days. After it expired, they detained me again Under Section 4(2)(a) of the same Act for 38 days,” he said.
However, on April 1, Ting said he was abruptly released with no reasons given whatsoever for his detention.
During the 40-day detention, Ting said he suffered mental stress and also lost about 5kg.
“At one time, I almost thought of giving up on pursuing the case,” he said, adding if not for the persistency of his wife and daughter to seek legal advices from Yap, he might end up being a restricted residence once the remand period expired.
Meanwhile, Yap described Prevention of Crime Act 1959 as a draconian law that had to be repealed, amended or even abolished altogether, to avoid any miscarriage of justice on the suspects.
He urged Sibu police chief ACP Stanley Jonathan Ringgit to scrutinise all the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 cases to determine whether there were any miscarriage of justice involved.
He said it was obvious that Ting suffered a miscarriage of justice when he was remanded for 40 days.
He said for Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(2)(a) to validate, the magistrate had the jurisdiction to remand the suspects upon the production of the statement in writing signed by a police officer not below the rank of inspector stating there are grounds for believing that the name of that person should be entered on the register, remand the person in police custody for 21 days and 38 days respectively.
In Ting’s case, he said three police reports were lodged against him under report number 12439/18, 760/19 and 578/19, and the police acted upon receiving the reports.