A high-profile case involving a man in Johor Bahru allegedly slapping a non-Muslim for eating in public during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan was heard in court on Wednesday ( Mar 19 ).
The 65-year-old male suspect ultimately argues at trial to a new charge of deliberately causing harm under Section 323 of the Penal Code, which turned out to be a time of many twists and turns.  ,
The Johor Bahru Magistrate’s Court little drama began on Sunday night when Abdul Razak Ismail immediately admitted to a fee of deliberately injuring Elijah Ling Zhao Zhong, age 21, at a convenience store in a Johor Bahru shopping plaza.
At least two ministers have condemned the alleged attack, and videos of the incident have gone viral.  ,
However, Abdul Razak soon refuted the information that had been given to him in his guilty plea.
According to a medical examination, this was related to how he had slap-induced bruises on Ling’s cheeks.
According to the court’s citation, Abdul Razak slammed him on Wednesday, but not sufficiently to cause a bruise.  ,
That resulted in Magistrate A Shaarmini rejecting the guilty plea and deciding that the case should go to trial.  ,
Despite Abdul Razak’s attempts to retract his words because he did not want to trouble his son, the judge said,” We do not accept a conditional guilty plea.”
However, the prosecution then requested that Abdul Razak be released from jail without having to serve as an acquittal ( DNAA ) before a trial date could be set.
After the Attorney General’s Chambers ( AGC ) reviewed the investigation documents in Putrajaya, deputy public prosecutor Nur Fatihah Mohd Nizam made a notification to the court that the accused would be re-charged.  ,
The DNAA would mean that Abdul Razak has the option to refile the charges or reinstate the case if new evidence or circumstances arise while Abdul Razak is temporarily discharged from the criminal charges against him.  ,
The court granted the prosecution’s request.
A member of parliament intervened and demanded that the AGC explain why Abdul Razak was given a discharge right away, sparking some discussion.  ,
The AGC should assure the public that fresh charges will be filed soon, according to Jimmy Puah, MP for the Tebrau constituency in Johor, according to Free Malaysia Today ( FMT ).
What is the DNAA’s justification? Was the charge incorrect? When will he receive a second chance? He was quoted by FMT on Wednesday as saying,” This development does not inspire the confidence of the public.”  ,
The AGC claimed in a statement on Wednesday afternoon that the discharge was made as a result of a technical issue with the initial charge on Wednesday morning.
The AGC continued, noting that the issue has since been resolved, but that it has not given more details about what it entails.  ,
The Attorney-General’s Chambers, as quoted by the New Straits Times, stated in the statement that” the attorney-general’s chambers continues to work to ensure that all parties receive fair justice in accordance with the laws.”  ,
Abdul Razak was then charged once more on Wednesday afternoon, and he entered a not-guilty plea this time.  ,
On Sunday, the purported victim identified as Elijah shared two videos on social media platform X that showed a man dressed in black confronting him for allegedly eating openly during Ramadan at the Angsana Shopping Mall in Johor Bahru.  ,
The 21-year-old X user claimed that the elderly man had asked him to present his identification card to show that he wasn’t a Muslim.
Elijah claimed the elderly man slapped him” several times” and that he had refused to present his identity card.  ,
According to Religious Affairs MinisterNa’im Mokhtar, the incident “does not reflect the true teachings of Islam,” while National Unity Minister Aaron Ago Dagang referred to it as a “provocative act” that “goes against the spirit of unity and harmony in Malaysia’s multicultural society.  ,
According to The Star, the court has set for the next case mention to occur on April 29.  ,
Abdul Razak could receive a maximum fine of RM2, 000 ( US$ 450 ), or both, if found guilty.