Media statement by M.Kula Segaran MP Ipoh Barat in the High Court of Ipoh on 14th February 2018

No remedy for wife whose husband was blatantly shot dead by police officer!!


On 16.09.2009 between 3.30pm and 5.10pm a person by the name of Chen Fun Kee was shot which lead to his death. The case today is between the deceased’s wife Leong Seok Cheng the First Plaintiff (1) and her only child Chen Ming Hui the Second Plaintiff (2) against the police.

The First Defendant, Mohd Taufik Peter Bin Abdullah was at all material times an officer of the Malaysian Police Department with the Police and a Government Servant to the Second and Third Defendant. The Plaintiffs contended that the First Defendant is the man primarily responsible for the shooting and killing of Chen Fun Kee. By reason of the killing, the First and Second Plaintiff suffered loss of support and claimed for damages.

First Defendant was found guilty under Section 3A of the Firearms Act (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 and was sentenced to death by the High Court of Malaya in Ipoh.

High Court sets aside Sessions Court decision and say CPO and IGP are not liable

This case was Heard for over 10 days in the Sessions Court in Ipoh and the Police was ordered to pay over RM200,000.00 in damages to the Plaintiffs. However, the AGC appealed and the High Court of Malaya in Ipoh allow the appeal. The High Court disturbed the findings of the Session Court and set aside the findings of liability against the police force.

It is the Contention of the Plaintiff’s that the Police and the Government of Malaysia failed to supervise, exercise control over 1st Defendant and thus, were negligent in employing a police officer whom had killed Chen Fun Kee by discharging the fire arm provided by the police.

The Police Act s.18 says “deemed to be always on duty when required to act as such and shall perform the duties and exercise the powers granted to him under the Act

At all material times a police officer is primarily governed and controlled by the Police Act. He is “deemed to be always on duty when required to act as such and shall perform the duties and exercise the powers granted to him under the Act. Thus, clearly this section spells out that a police office is on duty 24-hours a day. And as such, at all material times the 1st Defendant is on duly and in any case, performed such act against the deceased as an officer of the police force. Further by section 85 of the Act a police officer may in the performance of his duties carry arms.

This is a case where the deceased was killed by a police officer using arms belonging to the Police force, hence implicating the Police Force and they are answerable to the family of the deceased. A young man of only 42 years was robbed of his life and thus the continuous care and support to this family has been permanently cut off. Article 5 of Federal Constitution says no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. The Federal Constitution accords protection to all its citizens. But the killing of the deceased has deprived him of his life. The police must accept responsibility.

Although the police argued that the killing by the 1st Defendant was “a frolic of his own” we should go further and say that the police has a supreme duty of care and duty to society at large which includes the deceased because the 1st Defendant was at all material time a police officer appointed by the police force and he carried a gun given by the police force.

Are we going to allow the Police to wash their hands without any responsibility despite the existence of substantial evidence of negligence before the court to implicate the Defendants? Are the police not responsible fort arming a trigger-happy officer?

It is true whatever compensation the family may get will not bring the deceased back. But the guilty and those in power should be made accountable for their negligence in this case.

Suggest the setting up of a Compensation Fund in the Police Act

M Kula Segaran suggested for the Police Act 1967 to be amended to provide adequate compensation scheme to innocent victims like in the above case. A No-Fault Liability System must be set up to compensate families of those who sustained bodily injuries or died after being shot by trigger-happy police officers. The present Police Act 1967 is out dated and a review is most appropriate.

Madam Leong devastated by the High Court decision

After the High Court delivered judgment today, Madam Leong felt let down and disappointed by the decision of the High Court. She asked where is justice for her and her daughter. Her husband used to be the sole bread winner in the family and since he was shot dead in 2009, she had to take over. She is working now and finding it tough to take care of her child’s expenses on education. The cruel act of the 1st Defendant, who happens to the a Chief Inspector in shooting her husband has resulted in irreparable loss for her and her daughter who held on her tears while speaking to the reporters.

An appeal will be made to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court.

The case was heard before High Court Judge YA Dato' Che Mohd. Ruzima

The Plaintiffs were represented by M. Kula Segaran, N. Selvam and Omar Kutty while the Chief Police Officer of Perak and Inspector General of Police was represented by Amalina Zainal Mokhtar from the Attorney General’s Chambers.