I refer to the letter ‘Right of Self Defence’ by Dr Muzaffar Syah Mallow of Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia ( The Star Jan 9, 2016) wherein he says that “it is time for the authorities to create and release clear guidelines on a person’s right of self-defence under the existing laws in this country in order for the general public to know their limits when protecting themselves or their property”.

He believes that “this would be the practical thing to do following the uproar on social media over the case of Mohamad Zulkifli Ismail, 50, who is facing the gallows after allegedly stabbing to death a robber who had broken into his home in Kerteh, Terengganu, ‘Heated debate online over death of robber’ ( The Star , Jan 2).

When confronted by intruders who may or may not be armed even with a stick, but who definitely have bad intentions for breaking into people’s properties and are themselves prepared for their own ‘self-defence’ in case the victims turn on them, even to kill the victims if they have to, it is not the time to reach for and refer to ‘clear guidelines on a person’s right of self-defence’ before getting into action.

The proposer of the guidelines has failed to appreciate the mental state of the person(s) under sudden and real threat to their well-being and life. Is there any certainty how an individual would react under such mental pressure?

Can it be guaranteed by any authority that a person who has even memorised all the steps of ‘self-defence’ in the manual will follow those steps one-by-one when facing an intruder (whether armed or not) and not use ‘excessive force’ in self-defence?

Dr Muzaffar points out that Section 96 of the Act [Malaysian Penal Code (Act 574)] clearly stipulates: “Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence”. There is no issue with this.

However, he explains that this right is restricted under Section 99 of the same Act, in particular Subsection (3) which states: “There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities”, and Subsection (4) which states: “The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence”.

When faced with an intruder out of the blues, does one have ‘time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities’? So you tell the parang wielding intruder to “please wait, let me call the police?”

This may apply if you see a suspicious character lurking outside your gate and shoot him instead of calling the police. But when he is right in front of you in your house, what are you supposed to do and not to do? Recollect what the manual says about ‘not using excessive force in self defence’ before reacting, or quickly refer to the guidelines?

Subsection (4) states: “The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more “harm” than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence”. What is the definition of “harm” and what is the measure of “more harm than necessary” and how to ensure that “not more harm than necessary” is inflicted when one is under unknown threat from the intruder?

Let’s say the manual says “you shall not break any bones”. How is the victim to ensure this when the intruder is slashing away with a parang?

The manual may say “the victim must disarm the intruder without causing the intruder to bleed”. How is it to be done?

The manual may say: ”engage the victim in negotiations and call the police”? How to implement it?

‘Wait a while, let me refer to the manual’

So people must sleep with the manual beside them and when awoken by an intruder, tell the intruder, “wait a while, let me refer to the manual to see how to handle you without causing more harm than is necessary”! Isn’t this a joke?

Whose ‘self-defence’ are we talking about, that of the victims or that of the intruder? Can the intruder claim that he had to knock the victim out as he feared that the victim was about to cause him ‘more harm than is necessary’, perhaps shoot him?

Let’s stop being ridiculous. An intruder into somebody’s private property is not acting in a civilized manner and deserves no protection of the law or human rights. He pawns his own safety the moment he executes his criminal intent and he is answerable for his own fate, not the victims.

Does Dr Muzaffar Syah Mallow think that this is like preparing a food recipe book or a motorcar workshop manual? He completely fails to visualise the panic situation in which the victim has to react within split-seconds.

There are self-defence courses for people, like karate and silat, but the art is learnt through years of practice, not merely by reading manuals.

Producing ‘guidelines on a person’s right of self-defence’ will be nothing more than a business opportunity, and the consequence will be even worse for the victims as these guidelines will be held against them should they ‘inflict more harm than necessary’ in defending themselves and their properties.

Instead, the law should be amended to make it very clear that anyone who puts his criminal intent into motion, does it at the risk of his own life and limb and that the law will not provide him an iota of relief or defence.

It is a common practice for anyone embarking on a dangerous mission to give such an indemnity, e.g., a mountain climber, or a para-glider, does so at his own risk. So why don’t the authorities recognise that an intruder does so at his own risk, too?

Since he breaks the law by intruding into the private property of others, he cannot expect the law to also protect him. There is no moral basis to give him any protection. Let him ‘mati katak’. Please get this straight.

A manual on ‘crime at your own risk’ i.e. of doing things like house-breaking, may be more meaningful as a warning to would be criminals that the law will not give them an iota of protection as they become non law-abiding citizens the moment they begin their criminal act or activity.