Disabled e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong, who was assaulted by a police officer from Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim’s entourage in 2024, has filed a civil suit against the government, Kuala Lumpur police chief, and the inspector-general of police.
He is seeking damages and reforms to improve access for people with disabilities.
In the suit filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on July 10, Ong named police officer Taufik Ismail as the first defendant, along with another officer whom he alleged pressured him into withdrawing a police report lodged at the Jalan Travers police station about an hour after the assault on May 28, 2024.
Taufik, 34, who was part of Tunku Ismail’s entourage, was charged with voluntarily causing hurt, several months later over the incident, which led to a massive public outcry. He was fined RM1,000 after pleading guilty.
In his statement of claim, Ong, represented by legal firm Daim & Gamany, accused the defendants of assault, negligence, misfeasance in public office, and breaching provisions under the Police Act and the Persons with Disabilities Act.
Apart from seeking damages, Ong is also seeking declarations that the police had breached their statutory duties, as well as a mandatory injunction compelling police stations nationwide to provide access to Malaysian Sign Language interpreters.
Assaulted and pressured
The statement of claim recounted how Ong was punched in the face on May 28, 2024 outside the St Regis Hotel in Kuala Lumpur, where he had gone to pick up passengers.
“The plaintiff suffered pain to his face and was extremely shocked, frightened, traumatised, and humiliated by the first defendant’s actions.
“The incident occurred without any provocation or lawful justification. It also occurred in front of members of the public and the plaintiff’s passengers,” read the statement.
The statement also detailed Ong’s alleged ordeal at the Travers police station, claiming he was pressured to withdraw his police report and that his mobile phone was confiscated.
“The plaintiff was subsequently informed by police officers that his mobile phone would only be returned if he agreed to withdraw the first police report and delete the video showing the first defendant punching him.
“When the plaintiff refused and requested that his mobile phone be returned, he was left alone for several hours waiting, during which he was not allowed access to his mobile phone.
“The mobile phone was used by the plaintiff for his work and for communication as a deaf person. Therefore, the plaintiff felt extremely fearful, anxious, and distressed because his mobile phone was taken away for a prolonged period without reason and without any assurance that it would be returned.
“At all material times, access to communication and/or a Malaysian Sign Language interpreter and/or transcription equipment and/or translation facilities was not provided by the second, third, fourth, and fifth defendants to the plaintiff, contrary to Section 30 of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008,” read the statement. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.