Jailed – duo who stole food to feed families
Published on: Wed, Jul 23, 2025
By: Jo Ann Mool Text Size: Both men did not act out of personal interest, but out of desperation to support their families amidst rising living costs and economic hardship. Kota Kinabalu: Two men who stole RM153.90 worth of groceries from a convenience store in Penampang to feed their families were each jailed 14 days Tuesday. Labourer Abdillah Dumek, 42, and unemployed Mohammad Salleh, 37, pleaded guilty before Magistrate Marilyn Kelvin to stealing three packets of Biscoff biscuits, two cans of corned beef, a bottle of Naturel olive oil, a pack of Boh tea, and two tom yam stock cubes at The Stop N Shop, on June 29, at 7pm. Duty counsel Lim Ming Zoong @ Lawrence, who represented both requested a lenient sentence, stating that Abdillah, a divorcee with two children, and Mohammad, who was married with four children, had committed the offence out of desperation to support their families, who were fully dependent on them. Lim further submitted that although the court's AI sentencing recommendation served as a guideline, it could not consider the financial hardship the duo had faced. He said both men did not act out of personal interest, but out of desperation to support their families amidst rising living costs and economic hardship. Inspector Yusdi Basri, who prosecuted, urged the court to impose a deterrent sentence and raised no objection to the proposed AI-generated sentencing recommendation. Magistrate Marilyn, in ordering the duo to serve their sentence from the date of their arrest, advised them not to resort to stealing again. They were jointly charged under Section 380 of the Penal, which carries a jail term of up to 10 years and liability of a fine, on conviction. The facts of the case presented by the prosecution, stated that the store staff had alerted the complainant about two suspicious individuals loitering in the shop. CCTV footage showed them placing several items into a bag and leaving without paying. Both men were apprehended by the complainant and store employees, and the stolen items were recovered from their bags. In another case, a 38-year-old man was fined RM25 or jailed four days for using violence in a public place, disrupting public order. Chin Yong Fah admitted to committing the offence against a Pakistani national Faridoon Khan at 10.30am on July 10, at the parking lot of the wholesale fruit and vegetable market along Jalan Pintas, Penampang. The facts of the case presented by the prosecution stated that the incident began when Chin confronted Faridoon for parking his vehicle in a way that obstructed traffic and advised him to use the designated parking areas. An argument broke out, during which Khan punched Chin in the eye, prompting a scuffle. Both men later filed police reports, with Khan sustaining a minor thigh injury and Chin suffering swollen eye. Chin was charged under Section 8(1)(e) of the Minor Offences Ordinance of Sabah, which provides for a RM25 fine. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available.
Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
17 hours ago
- Malay Mail
When will Parliament act over concerns regarding arrest and remand of children? — Hafiz Hassan
AUGUST 2 — To arrest a person is to deprive him of his liberty by some lawful authority. (Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary) It is one of the initial steps taken in the criminal process which may lead to eventual prosecution of the arrested person. The main statute governing criminal process in Malaysia is the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which is also the general statute on criminal procedure and processes. Now, when an arrested person is a child, the child is governed by the Child Act 2001(CA). The CA is a specific statute governing matters relating to children, including criminal procedure applicable to children. Under Section 2(1) of CA, a child is a person under the age of 18 years. In relation to criminal proceedings, a child is a person who has attained the age of criminal responsibility as prescribed in Section 82 of the Penal Code. In the absence of a specific provision in the CA concerning any criminal procedure, the provisions of the CPC apply. Part X of CA contains provisions on criminal procedure in the Court for Children. It starts with Section 83 which stipulates that a child shall not be arrested and detained except in compliance with the CA. Part X now includes provisions on arrest following amendments in 2016. These are contained in the new Section 83A which states as follows: (1) A child who is arrested shall not be handcuffed unless - (a) the offence with which he is arrested for is a grave crime; or (b) the child forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade the arrest. (2) When a child is arrested, he shall be informed of his grounds of arrest, and a police officer shall, as soon as may be, before commencing any form of questioning or recording of any statement from the child, communicate to the parent or guardian, or relative of the child and a probation officer to inform - (a) the child's whereabouts; (b) the grounds of the child's arrest; and (c) the right to consult with a counsel of the child's choice. (3) A police officer may allow the probation officer and the parent or guardian of a child to be present at the place where the child is being detained after arrest to ensure the child's welfare. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the powers of a police officer to deal with a child arrested in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. The writer argues it's time for Parliament to act on a 20-year-old legal gap: Malaysia's Child Act still lacks clear provisions on the arrest and remand of minors, leaving vulnerable children subject to general criminal procedures. — Reuters pic But apart from the above, there are no other provisions in the CA relating to the arrest of children. One may say that the CA is not comprehensive on a matter that deprives a child of his liberty. Arguably, the arrest of children should be guided by special criteria and procedures, considering who and how vulnerable they are. They have the right to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of their best interest and their sense of dignity and worth. Critical as well, the CA makes no provisions on remand of an arrested child for the purpose of investigation. As the Court of Appeal (COA) in the case of PP v N (A Child) said, the CA '[does] not provide for the detention of a child for the purpose of investigations'. Accordingly, Section 117 of CPC applies. The COA further said that 'if Parliament had intended to categorically prohibit a child from being detained for investigations for more than 24 hours, it would have said so precisely.' The consequence is an arrested child is subject to the general law on criminal procedure and processes. The case was decided in 2004. It's been more than 20 years now. Aminuddin Mustaffa and Norshamimi Mohd Mazlan of Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) have argued that the law in the country '[does] not comply with international standards because it does not provide separate principles governing arrest and detention of children. The absence of clear and specific procedure of arrest of children appears to be inconsistent with the international standards set by the international instruments which require' that arrest of a child must be 'a measure of last resort and for the least reasonable period of time, in order for an arrest to be legally justifiable.' The writers have recommended that the law on arrest and remand of children be reviewed and reformed. [See Mustaffa, A., & Mazlan, N. (2022). 'Investigation process of children under Malaysian juvenile justice: To arrest or not to arrest?' Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 25(S2), 1-8] When will Parliament act? * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Star
18 hours ago
- The Star
Built with DBKL's support, a 42-year-old hall is now marked for demolition
IN 1981, a pre-dawn fire razed a small wooden community hall located on Jalan 1, Kampung Baru Salak Selatan, Kuala Lumpur. What followed was a grassroots revival led by a group of youths in their 20s and 30s. Guided by then-Kuala Lumpur mayor Tan Sri Elyas Omar, they held a fundraising campaign to rebuild the space for the neighbourhood. For every RM1 raised by the community, Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) pledged to match it. The campaign collected RM280,000, and the new hall was built and launched by Elyas himself two years later. Elyas also issued a letter encouraging the group to form a registered organisation to manage the facility, and on Sept 15, 1987, Persatuan Kebajikan Kampung Baru Salak Selatan, an umbrella body of seven non-governmental organisations (NGOs), was born. Fast forward more than four decades, and the men and women, now in their 70s and 80s, have found themselves locked out of the very hall they built, ordered to vacate and demolish it. At a press conference outside the building on Saturday (Aug 2), association deputy chairman, Chen Chong Hing questioned why the authorities did not engage with the association before issuing a demolition order. 'If the hall is illegal, then help us make it legal. Don't just slap a red notice and ask us to demolish,' he said, choking back tears. According to the notice, which was issued by the Federal Territories Land and Mines Office (PTGWP), the hall sits on government land and must be vacated and torn down immediately or risk legal action under Section 425(1) of the National Land Code 1965. Offenders face a fine of up to RM500,000, five years in jail, or both. Association chairman Chin Yen Foo also expressed disappointment over how the matter was handled. 'This is an association that has been running events for the community since the late 1970s, even before the original hall was burned down,' Chin said. 'They're saying the structure is illegal after all these years and asking us to demolish it. But why not just engage with us and help fix the problem? 'They should be helping us to legalise the building, out of respect for the people who have worked tirelessly to serve this community, and for the late mayor who helped bring this hall to life,' he added. Chin said the association had always operated transparently, offering programmes such as kindergartens, charity drives and community events. 'All we're asking for is respect and a meeting,' he said. Committee member Chen Kow was unhappy with how the notice was served. 'It wasn't just one notice on the hall entrance. The officers plastered red notices everywhere, on the library outside the hall, the kindergarten, the basketball court, the food court, even on every trader's stall inside the food court. That's not right. It felt more like bullying than enforcement,' Chen added. Meanwhile, a DBKL spokesperson confirmed that a meeting has been scheduled for Monday with the association to discuss the matter.
Focus Malaysia
21 hours ago
- Focus Malaysia
Bring back the rotan? LaPaq app founder calls for return of caning in schools
AINOL Razman Ghazali, founder of the LaPaq application, has reignited debate on discipline in Malaysian schools by calling for the return of public caning, following an incident where a 14-year-old student allegedly punched a teacher. 'There was a time when the most dangerous thing in class wasn't a flying chair — it was a flying rotan,' Ainol wrote in a viral post. 'Now, teachers walk on eggshells, stripped of authority, while students flex their 'hak asasi manusia'.' His comments came after police confirmed that a secondary school teacher was assaulted on July 29 after reprimanding a student for skipping physical education. The student, reportedly unhappy with the scolding, punched the teacher in the face and issued threats. He was later detained and is expected to be charged under Section 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt. Ainol, reflecting on his Gen-X schooling days, said that while past disciplinary methods were harsh, they instilled respect. 'We feared teachers, headmasters, and even our parents if we crossed the line. That fear kept us in check.' He believes today's overcorrection has left teachers powerless. 'We expect them to raise leaders and innovators, yet give them no tools, no protection — and increasingly, no respect.' Calling the current system broken, he ended with a provocative proposal: 'Bring back public caning. Let there be consequences again.' — Aug 2, 2025 Main photo credit: Ainol Razman Ghazali's LinkedIn
