Justice not served in sexual harassment case

I READ with utter dismay the report “‘DPP decided against sexual harassment prosecution’” (The Star, Aug 31; online at https://bit.ly/34PJOKH), which quoted Brickfields OCPD Asst Comm Zailrulnizam Mohd Zainuddin@ Hilmi saying the DPP (deputy public prosecutor) made the decision after considering that the public university where the offence took place had taken action against the suspect.

This reasoning is astounding considering the fact that the suspect was investigated under Section 354 of the Penal Code for outrage of modesty.

Violation of Section 354 of the Penal Code is a criminal offence and the proper place to deal with it is in court if a prima facie case has been made after the investigation was completed.

Sexual harassment at the workplace or any other setting for which rules have been established represents misconduct. The management of the organisation where the offence occurred is duty-bound to institute appropriate investigations and take the necessary disciplinary action against the perpetrator. It is their legal and moral obligation to doso.

But such action taken in no way substitutes for the criminal proceedings, which ought to be instituted by the police especially when a formal report has been lodged by the victim and the allegation is found to be true.

ACP Zailrulnizam also said the victim was informed of the DPP’s decision not to prosecute as soon as it was made.

He also made the assurance that the police would take action against anyone who has broken the law.

If such is the way incidents of sexual harassment are going to be handled by the DPP, it should be no surprise if victims shy away from reporting them and the perpetrators would get away scot-free. In this case, it would appear that justice has not been served in the eyes of the victim and the public.

SHOCKED AND DISMAYED Kuala Lumpur