PUTRAJAYA – Paul Yong Chong Kiong’s conviction for the alleged rape of his maid in 2019 is deemed unsafe and unsatisfactory due to a host of factors regarding the conduct of the trial, according to a dissenting judgement from Court of Appeal judge Datuk S.M. Komathy Suppiah.
In today’s minority judgement on the former Tronoh assemblyman’s appeal, Komathy raised concerns about a serious miscarriage of justice that she believes compromised Yong’s right to a fair trial.
Central to her critique was the trial judge’s use of Section 265(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, allowing two witnesses, including the victim, to testify anonymously.
Komathy argued that this provision, designed to protect witnesses in cases involving organised crimes, denied Yong the chance to see the faces of the witnesses, thereby violating his fundamental right to a fair trial.
“As a result of the order, at the trial, the appellant (Yong) and his counsel were denied the opportunity to see the faces of the two witnesses (which include the victim). (But) I’m unable to agree that the protection order invoked is necessary in this case,” she said.
“That being said, in my view, the appellant was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial as well as the ability to see the face of the witnesses, which is an important factor in a cross-examination, and this is an occasion of a serious miscarriage of justice,” she added.
She highlighted discrepancies in the victim’s testimony, questioning her calm demeanour after the alleged incident and citing inconsistencies in her statements. Komathy also raised doubts about the abrupt shift in the nature of the complaint from sexual harassment to rape, casting scepticism on the credibility of the victim’s account.
Komathy also said that the total absence of injury from the victim’s body was also inconsistent with her narration of the fact.
During trial, the fifth and sixth prosecution witnesses, who are medical officers, testified that there was a freshly torn hymen and an elaboration of her vagina upon medical examination.
“(However), the doctors who examined the victim agreed that there were other possible causes, such as masturbation or self-pleasure with the finger (that could cause) the tear of the victim’s hymen… besides sexual intercourse.
“Also, it was in the victim’s evidence that they were left alone when the appellant’s (Yong) wife had left the house to buy McDonald’s.
“It is difficult to believe that the appellant recklessly runs the huge risk of being caught for raping the victim and committing the alleged offence, knowing that his wife and son could return home at any time from the McDonald’s branch, which is just a 10 to 13 minutes drive from home.
“More importantly, knowing that the victim could tell the appellant’s wife (of alleged rape) upon her return. With respect to the learned trial judge, I am far from satisfied that the victim’s evidence as a whole was unusually convincing,” she said.
“Having scrutinised the victim’s evidence, I find several pieces of evidence as inconsistent and (there are) discrepancies on several issues. (This includes) the victim’s suspicious calm conduct after the alleged doing, as if nothing had happened. (It) is not consistent with that of a rape victim.
“Furthermore, the third prosecution witness, whom the victim had contacted after the alleged rape, lodged a report saying that the victim had complained of sexual harassment and not rape.
“There is also evidence that the embassy contacted the maid agency, which informed them that the victim had complained about being treated poorly by her employer.
“The allegation (of) rape only surfaced several hours later, when the victim was taken to the police station by another witness. There was no explanation provided for the two totally inconsistent versions given by the victim,” she said.
“There is a world of difference between sexual harassment, not being treated well by an employer and rape by an employer,” she added.
Despite these concerns, a two-to-one majority of Court of Appeal judges upheld Yong’s guilty conviction for raping his maid today. However, they reduced his jail sentence from 13 to eight years.
Yong’s legal team, including lawyers Datuk Rajpal Singh, Datuk Hisyam Teh Pok Teik, and Salim Bashir, presented his case, while deputy public prosecutor Mohd Fuad Abd Aziz led the prosecution during the hearing. – March 1, 2024