The application of the Minor Offences Act 1955 against the eight people who are accused of assaulting Shah Alam MP Khalid Abdul Samad on Parliament grounds in November last year sends the wrong message, said lawyer Syahredzan Johan.

The Minor Offences Act is rarely used, because offences under the act are often perceived to be too minor to be brought to court, he said.

Even if the charges are brought, the accused would often simply plead guilty because the penalties are minor.

"So here, what we have is essentially a Member of Parliament - the very people who are tasked to legislate and are part and parcel of our legislative process - being attacked by a group of people, and yet the state decided to only charge them under the Minor Offences Act.

"So, essentially what it is saying is that this is just a minor offence - that attacking an MP is just a minor offence.

"This is completely not acceptable. It is not as if we don't have laws that can be used against these people," Syahredzan (picture) told Malaysiakini when contacted yesterday.

Meanwhile, Bar Council president George Varughese concurred that the charge does not commensurate with the crime.

"The charge preferred appears not to commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence committed against an MP in the vicinity of the Parliament.

"The alternative laws that may be applicable are Sections 124, 321 and 339 of the Penal Code," Varughese told Malaysiakini yesterday.

Section 124 deals with assault against MPs and state assemblypersons with the intention of compelling or restraining the exercise of a lawful power. Upon conviction, it is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine.

Section 321 deals with voluntarily causing hurt. It is punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment or a fine of up to RM2,000, or both, upon conviction.

Section 339 is for wrongful restraint, which is punishable by imprisonment of up to one month or a fine of up to RM1,000, or both, upon conviction.

Syahredzan suggested that the accused be charged either under Section 124 or Section 147 of the Penal Code. Section 147 deals with rioting and is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment, a fine, or both upon conviction.

While stressing that the eight accused are innocent until proven otherwise and have a right to defend themselves in court, he said the elements to prove an offence under Section 147 appear to be in place.

"When there is force being used, or violence, then it can constitute rioting. That’s (Section) 147. Of course, the punishment is two years' jail or fine.

"But, at the very least, you are sending a message that we are viewing this as a serious matter. We cannot have MPs being attacked in Parliament,” Syahredzan said.

'The elements are there'

In contrast, it may be too difficult to prove a case under Section 124, which would require the prosecution to prove other elements, such as intent.

"Between the two, although conviction under rioting provides a lesser sentence, but at the very least the elements are there, and I would think that the prosecution would be able to prove these elements," Syahredzan said.

Another lawyer, Joshua Tay, suggested that either Section 124 or Section 503 of the Penal Code be used. Section 503 criminalises intimidation and is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment, a fine or both, upon conviction.

The eight accused are Firdaus Tajuddin, Faizal Tajuddin, Ariffin Mohamed Ali, Erwan Halmi, Azmir Ahmad, Sapiah Sulaiman, Norbaiti Taha and Hasnah Md Razali.

The group - who were supposedly led by Firdaus and Faizal - the sons of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry deputy minister Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (picture) - ambushed Khalid on Parliament grounds on Nov 24 last year.

This led to a scuffle as the Parliament’s security personnel tried to keep the group away from Khalid.

The eight were initially investigated under the Section 147 of the Penal Code for rioting, but were charged under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act instead at a magistrate’s court in Kuala Lumpur on Monday. They have all reportedly pleaded not guilty.

The provision deals with "insulting behaviour", and carries a penalty of up to RM100 fine upon conviction.

Khalid now has other remedies

Khalid described the minor charge as "insulting" to Parliament and urged the Dewan Rakyat speaker to intervene. His lawyer, Zulhazmi Shariff, is to write to attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali for the charge to be reviewed.

Faizal claimed that the police were being unfair, as the group was being charged while their complaint against Khalid for using the word "sial" (damned) against his father was classified as "no further action".

Khalid was at the time chastising Tajuddin for describing Seputeh MP Teresa Kok as a "woman with a Kok" during a parliamentary debate on Nov 21 last year.

Lawyers Varughese and Tay both told Malaysiakini that it is normal for an alleged crime to be investigated under one offence, and then for the accused to be charged under another offence.

However, it would not be possible to challenge the attorney-general's discretion to proffer a charge under the Minor Offences Act instead of a more serious charge, both Syahredzan and Tay said.

"In other jurisdictions, the discretion to prosecute by the attorney-general has been challenged. However, in Malaysia, this discretion is held by the courts to be absolute," Tay said.

Nevertheless, Varughese and Syahredzan both pointed out that Khalid may still have recourse in the civil court by suing the eight involved in the incident in Parliament.

"Now he (Khalid) knows the identities of these people, he can take civil action against them. If they are found guilty, then that can used as a basis to launch a civil suit," Varughese said.