Suspected robbery gang leader killed in shootout with Kuala Lumpur police
Acting director of Bukit Aman Police Fadil Marsus told local media that the shootout with the suspect occurred at about 4.10am along Jalan Bukit Tunku.
The area is located some 9km from the famed Petronas Twin Towers.
"Police were monitoring the 36-year-old suspect, who had a record of 44 prior offences including robbery, violent crime, house break-in, and drug-related offences," Fadil was quoted as saying by New Straits Times.
He added that the suspect was believed to have been behind several housebreaking and robbery cases in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, and Perak since 2024, with losses totalling to over RM1 million (US$237,000).
The early morning shootout ensued after the police had intercepted the suspect, who was allegedly conducting surveillance for potential houses to rob.
'He opened fire at the police, forcing (police) officers to return fire in self-defence,' said Fadil.
The suspect was driving a BMW car, which was later found to have been bearing a fake registration plate number. It is also believed to have been smuggled from abroad.
A revolver, burglary tools and a police vest were seized in a search of the suspect's car.
Preliminary investigations by the Kuala Lumpur police found that the gang led by the suspect had previously posed as police officers, targeting businesses and homes with safes, gold bars and cash. The gang is also believed to have been involved in drug trafficking operations.
The police are still searching for other members of the gang, with 'dozens' of members potentially remaining at large.
Just last month, former Kuala Lumpur police chief Rusdi Isa assured the public that the Malaysian capital is still safe despite two fatal shootings there over a span of four days.
Rushdi, who is now the director of the Bukit Aman Commercial Crime Investigation Department, had said then the shootings in Cheras and Brickfields should not be used as evidence to suggest unsafe conditions in Kuala Lumpur.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Wake Up Singapore founder can be admitted to the Bar despite KKH defamation case, says chief justice
SINGAPORE: A lawyer linked to the criminal defamation of KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) involving a fake miscarriage story has been given the green light to be admitted to the Bar. Mr Ariffin Iskandar Sha Ali Akbar, a 28-year-old Singaporean, was fined S$8,000 (now US$6,230) by a court in August last year for defaming the hospital by publishing a false account submitted by a woman from Myanmar on the Wake Up Singapore (WUSG) website. Mr Ariffin, who founded WUSG and is better known simply as Ariffin Sha, is a legal executive who has worked with other lawyers such as Mr Gino Hardial Singh and Mr Eugene Thuraisingam. He was also a candidate for the Singapore Democratic Party in this year's General Election. According to a judgment released on Friday (Aug 8), the attorney-general (AG) and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) had objected to Mr Ariffin's application to be admitted to the Bar because of the KKH case. The AG and SILE said Mr Ariffin was not "capable of being entrusted to aid in the administration of justice as an advocate and solicitor without the risk of undermining public confidence". Mr Ariffin was WUSG's sole administrator at the time of the offence in March 2022, and he was convicted of criminal defamation and fined, said the AG and SILE. OBJECTIONS BY AG, SILE The AG argued that while the defamation offence did not involve dishonesty, it was "incompatible with the values which the legal profession stood for, namely integrity, probity and trustworthiness". The AG contended that Mr Ariffin was "plainly negligent in failing to verify the allegations as against KKH before publishing them", despite knowing that doing so could harm the hospital's reputation and cause grave public concern over the state of Singapore's hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The AG likened Mr Ariffin's conduct to that of Mr M Ravi, who had acted without due care when he made statements to the court which he ought to have known were untrue. Furthermore, Mr Ariffin ought to have known the importance of ascertaining the truth before making public allegations, especially since he had worked in law firms since November 2019, said the AG. SILE similarly submitted that the nature of the offence was relatively serious and that only a short time had passed since his conviction and punishment. In particular, it highlighted that the offence was committed against a public hospital and had a ripple effect of spreading falsehoods about KKH, since the story was picked up by multiple news outlets and served to "erode trust" in the hospital. The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) did not object to Mr Ariffin's admission, saying the offence was "not one of serious gravity and did not involve any dishonesty". CHIEF JUSTICE'S DECISION Both the AG and SILE, as well as LawSoc, agreed that the issue in Mr Ariffin's case was not one that affected his character, said Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. Mr Ariffin had disclosed what happened when applying for admission, and all three stakeholders noted that he was "cooperative and remorseful" throughout the admissions process, noted the chief justice. He said there had been no suggestion by any of the stakeholders that Mr Ariffin presented any character issue that stood in the way of his being admitted to the Bar. "Indeed, he voluntarily disclosed his involvement in publishing the article and demonstrated remorse when the article was later retracted," said Chief Justice Menon. "He also showed his willingness to take responsibility for his actions. He apologised to KKH privately by email, published a retraction of the story and issued an apology to KKH on WUSG's Facebook page. He had also assisted with police investigations and disclosed all the material facts relating to the incident. He had left his sentence in the hands of the court and paid his fine on the same day," he said. The chief justice noted that Mr Ariffin was aware that the story was a fabrication only two days after he published the article. "The complaint that can be laid against Mr Ariffin was not that he had acted dishonestly, but rather, that he had failed to exercise due care to ascertain the veracity of the story before he published it," said Chief Justice Menon. He said that while what Mr Ariffin did was "wholly unsatisfactory", this remained an offence of "a lack of care, rather than knowing falsehood or indifference to the truth". He also noted the positive steps taken by Mr Ariffin to re-establish his suitability for legal practice after being convicted, including supporting lawyers in pro bono and community work. He thus found that Mr Ariffin was a fit and proper person in terms of character and that his application for admission could go ahead. Mr Ariffin was represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Ng Yuan Siang. According to the public hearing list, he will be called to the Bar on Aug 13. In the same judgment allowing Mr Ariffin to be admitted to the Bar, the chief justice found two others to be not fit and proper for admission due to character issues. They had committed plagiarism. He ordered their applications to be stayed for 18 months and three years, respectively, from July 2025. In response to a request from CNA for a statement, Mr Ariffin said he was "humbled and honoured". "I hope to use this privilege of practice to serve the community and help those in need. I would like to thank the honourable court, the stakeholders, my lawyers from Audent Chambers and Eugene Thuraisingam, and my mentors in law. I will do my best to make them proud," he said.
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
Apex court dismisses appeal by man convicted of sexually assaulting his wife in first such case
SINGAPORE: The Court of Appeal on Friday (Aug 8) dismissed the appeal of a man convicted of sexually assaulting his wife, finding that the trial judge was right to convict him and sentence him to eight years' jail and six strokes of the cane. At the time, it was the first case that considered a spousal relationship and whether it could give rise to the abuse or breach of trust in sexual offences, after marital immunity for rape was fully repealed in Singapore in January 2020. The 39-year-old man had claimed trial to two charges of sexual assault by penetration against his wife on Jul 13, 2020. He also contested one count of obstructing justice in October 2020, by trying to get his wife, now 40, to withdraw the allegation against him. Neither can be named due to a gag order protecting the wife's identity. The man was convicted of all charges. On Friday, his lawyers, Ms N K Anitha and Mr Vinit Chhabra, tried to urge the court to dismiss the conviction and to allow them to present fresh evidence to show that the wife was not a credible witness. DEFENCE CITES "HIGHLY SEXUAL" NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP Ms Anitha's arguments centred on the wife's evidence, highlighting "inconsistencies" that made it "dangerous" for the court to convict the man. The wife has since served divorce papers to him in prison. The lawyer urged the court, comprising Justices Tay Yong Kwang, Belinda Ang and Woo Bih Li, to consider the "highly sexual nature" of the couple's relationship. At the time, they had been married for more than eight years, and to expect sexual intimacy between a married couple to be "predicated by express consent" is "contrived and unrealistic", she said. However, the court pointed out that the context was different this time because the husband had just moved back to stay with the wife after a period of separation. Ms Anitha responded that her client had access to the house, and had been sneaked in by his wife on at least eight to 10 occasions for them to have sexual intimacy. This was over and above them going on family trips and being sexually active, she said. Justice Tay said there was "obviously some strain" at the time, as the wife had initially refused to let the man return home and agreed only after intervention by other family members. Ms Anitha argued that the wife had "demonstrated a readiness to tailor her evidence to suit her narrative", with a medical report for certain injuries being inconsistent with her claim of being punched many times. Justice Tay said the main issue in the hearing was whether the sex was consensual. While the wife may have been inconsistent on other things, the crux was whether she was consistent in saying the sex was without consent. The defence argued that their client believed his wife had consented based on "good faith", and based on his own interactions with his wife, which was the only context in which he could understand her. The defence also asserted that the wife had a motive as she always intended to have sole custody, care and control of their two children, and to restrict the man's access to them. In response, Deputy Public Prosecutor Jane Lim said none of the alleged inconsistencies by the wife affected her credibility or her account regarding consent. The woman had been consistent in her account of how she did not give consent, from closing her legs to her husband, telling him to stop and saying "stop violating me". UNANIMOUS DECISION After hearing arguments, the court gave a unanimous decision dismissing the defence's appeals against the conviction and sentence, as well as rejecting the application to present fresh evidence. Justice Tay said fresh evidence should not be admitted at this appeal, because it would not have an important influence on the results. This was because the man's contentions are premised largely on the assumption that the "unusually convincing" standard of proof applied to this case. This is in a situation of a sexual offence where it is only the victim's word against the accused, and the victim's evidence must therefore be "unusually convincing" - a legal standard with a high threshold to meet. However, Justice Tay said this standard does not apply here as the wife's evidence was not the sole basis for the conviction. There was corroborating evidence in the communications between the man and his sister, in the first video-recorded interview with the police on Jul 14, 2020, and in the statement he gave to the police on Jul 15, 2020. The apparent inconsistencies raised by the defence pertain to "minute details in relation to the penetration charges" and do not detract "in any way" from the woman's assertion that the penetration had taken place without her consent, said Justice Tay. The court found that the sentence of eight years' jail and six strokes of the cane did not appear to be wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The man, who sat in the dock in his prison outfit as he had been remanded for a period of time, showed little reaction to the verdict. His loved ones in the public gallery had their hands in prayer poses. They were allowed to speak to him before he was taken away.
Independent Singapore
7 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
‘My HDB neighbour keeps complaining we're making stomping noises in the bedroom every night… but no one is in that room' — Resident asks for advice
SINGAPORE: If there's one thing scarier than ghosts in an HDB flat, it's the accusation that you are the ghost. A Singapore resident turned to Reddit in exasperation after their downstairs neighbours knocked on their door—again—to complain about mysterious stomping sounds coming from their upstairs neighbour's master bedroom between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. every night. Except for one small problem: No one was in that room at the time. Neighbours thinks noise is coming from my unit byu/Hot_Construction3722 inaskSingapore 'I went down to speak to them a few times, and the sound has never stopped even since they came up to complain,' the resident wrote on Reddit. 'So I told them, 'Wouldn't it make more sense for the sound to stop after you complain to us?' But they were so adamant that it's from my unit.' All of a sudden, this everyday Singaporean family was living in what might be the world's quietest haunted house—or the loudest wrongly-accused one. 'But no one hangs out [in the master bedroom]…' The Reddit post gained traction because many Singaporeans could relate. If you've ever lived in an HDB flat, you'll know: noise complaints are as common as kopi orders at 4 p.m. However, this wasn't just a one-off knock-and-go scenario. The neighbours had gone as far as lodging a police report against the family in a case of potential paranormal pounding. 'The thing is the noise does not come from us (me and my siblings + my parents), as during that time we're mostly winding down in our beds or on the couch just doing our own thing,' the resident clarified. See also Beloved community cat Ginger goes missing in Pasir Ris 'They claimed the sound is coming from the master bedroom, but no one hangs out there,' the resident explained further. The only regular visitor to that room? Dad—after midnight, when everyone else is already deep in slumber. 'HDB walls are full of pipes and beams…' Commenters were quick to back the resident up, many having experienced the acoustic tricks of HDB life themselves. 'HDB walls are full of pipes and beams,' one wrote. 'It's very easy for sound to travel through those and make it seem like it's coming from somewhere it's not.' Another said they once chased a mysterious drilling sound for hours, only to discover it was coming from a unit diagonally below them, and in a delightfully bizarre twist, one resident's mystery noises turned out to be from a malfunctioning lift. 'Town council fixed it for us,' they said. 'It sounded exactly as if our upstairs neighbour were dragging furniture the entire day.' 'Tough to talk sense to illogical people…' The resident noted that the complaints were starting to affect their elderly parents, who were understandably distressed by the constant accusations. Many Redditors advised a more direct approach—one that's surprisingly Singaporean in its logic: WhatsApp (WA) and video calls. 'I solved this issue by going down to my neighbour's and exchanging WA numbers,' one shared. 'I told him to message me when he heard the loud noises. When he did, I just video-called him and showed him how quiet my house was.' See also Punggol HDB loft unit sold for record S$1.22 million The community also suggested reaching out to the Residents' Committee (RC) or grassroots leaders for mediation. 'Only mediation by a 3rd party will work,' one commenter noted. 'Tough to talk sense to illogical people.' You can also find guidance on neighbourly etiquette on the HDB website. 'Neighbour disputes are rarely one-sided and straightforward…' One insightful Redditor dropped a stat that made everyone pause: Singapore sees about 85 noise complaints a day, based on data from 2023 to 2024. That's more than three complaints every hour—and those are just the reported ones. And the plot thickens: 'Neighbour disputes are rarely one-sided and straightforward,' the same commenter wrote. 'It can range from differences in lifestyle (such as a family with small kids versus an elderly person who wants to sleep early) or unintentional actions… that affect everyone else.' Translation? Life in an HDB flat is essentially a game of sonic pinball—where sound bounces, echoes, and ricochets until everyone's confused and a little grumpy. 'Has anyone thought of calling the Ghostbusters?' And then there were the jokes. 'Has anyone thought of calling the Ghostbusters?' one Redditor deadpanned. Another recommended the resident to watch the Korean mystery thriller film called Wall to Wall on Netflix—a cheerfully irrelevant nod to the frustrating mystery of where all the noises are really coming from. But perhaps the best advice came from a Redditor who had been through a very similar situation, where even their dustbin came under suspicion. 'We even bought socks for all the chairs at home,' they said. 'And put a cloth under the dustbins.' And yet, even then, the complaints rolled in. The verdict: Don't stomp to conclusions Whether it's footsteps, furniture, or phantom noise, it's clear that HDB life requires more than just good walls—it calls for goodwill. As one commenter wisely put it: 'Ultimately, it's not your fault, and you don't need to help them, but when they realise that you are well-intentioned, the rationality will start to kick in.' So before you start soundproofing your entire flat or accusing your neighbour of training elephants, take a breath. Exchange contacts. Invite them over. Pour a cup of teh and have a chat. Because in Singapore, we may not always have space, but we can make room for a little grace. In other news, a Singapore bus driver didn't stop his bus at the bus stop because he could not see a waving passenger who insisted he was right in front of the bus. Was it just a case of poor visibility… or another paranormal case of a ghost commuter? You can read about the encounter, or rather commotion, that happened next over here: 'Passenger is rude to the driver… So entitled!' — Netizens say after passenger scolded driver for driving off despite him waving 'in front of the bus'
