The recent case involving Israeli national Avitan Shalom’s conviction for possessing firearms and ammunition without a permit in Malaysia has sparked considerable controversy, especially due to the relatively lenient sentence he received.

On Wednesday, Shalom pleaded guilty to both a primary and alternative charge under Section 8(a) of the Arms Act 1960. After considering the accused’s guilty plea, the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment for each charge. The sentences will run concurrently from the date of his arrest on March 28, 2024.

To fully understand the significance of this case, we need to break down several elements: the legal offence, the sentence, the societal reaction, and related matters surrounding the crime.

It should be noted that it was previously reported that Shalom was charged with possessing a box of Shell Shock NAS3 9mm containing eight bullets, three boxes of Bullet Master Co Ltd containing 150 bullets, and 42 bullets in three different weapons without a licence or weapons permit.

The charge, under Section 8(a) of the Arms Act 1960, carries a prison sentence not exceeding seven years or a fine not exceeding RM10,000, or both if convicted.

He was also initially charged with trafficking six firearms, comprising a Glock 19 USA 9×19, a Sig Sauer P3205P, a Cougar 8000FT, a Glock 17 Gen4 Austria 9×19, an M&P 9C Smith & Wesson Springfield MA USA, and a Stoeger Cougar 8000F. The charge, under Section 7(1) of the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, provides imprisonment for up to 40 years and not less than six strokes of the cane if convicted.

Under Malaysian law, possession of firearms and ammunition is strictly regulated due to the country’s serious concerns regarding crime and national security. The Arms Act 1960 (specifically Section 8(a)) criminalises the possession, acquisition, or ownership of firearms and ammunition without a proper licence or permit. This is a serious offence, as unregulated firearms can pose significant threats to public safety, including facilitating organised crime, terrorism, or other violent actions.

In Shalom’s case, he was found in possession of 200 rounds of ammunition and six firearms without a licence. The gravity of this offence is further underscored by the fact that firearms are tools that can be used for violence, and ammunition is a critical component in enabling those firearms to be used effectively. When coupled with the possession of several firearms, the risk to society becomes even greater, potentially threatening public order and the safety of individuals.

However, after the defence made three representations to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, including requesting an alternative charge and the accused pleading guilty, Shalom was sentenced to a seven-year jail term for both charges by Sessions Court judge Zaki Salleh. His prison term is to run concurrently.

The alternative charge offered was for possessing six firearms. It was substituted for his second initial charge, which accused him of trafficking the same six firearms.

This sentence is relatively lenient compared to the potential severity of the offence. The Arms Act 1960 outlines strict penalties for violations of this nature. Under normal circumstances, possessing firearms or ammunition without a licence could result in a rather lengthy prison sentence and/or whipping. However, Shalom was able to plead for a reduced charge, which led to the relatively lighter seven-year sentence.

Various factors might have influenced the decision. Shalom’s guilty plea likely led to a reduction in sentence, as the Malaysian criminal justice system sometimes offers leniency to defendants who cooperate with the judicial process. However, the nature of the crime – especially the possession of multiple firearms – would typically warrant a much harsher punishment to set an example and deter similar offences.

The lenient sentence has stirred outrage, particularly among those who believe that possessing firearms without a permit is a serious crime that endangers public safety. Many members of Malaysian society view the relatively short sentence as an insufficient deterrent, particularly because firearms are not easily accessible in Malaysia and their illegal possession is often associated with more severe criminal activities, such as organised crime, gang violence, or terrorism.

Many concerned citizens and residents are shocked by the disparity between the severity of the crime and the sentence. Malaysia has always had stringent laws when it comes to firearms due to past incidents of violence and the growing concern about terrorism and other serious crimes. Public opinion often leans toward stricter enforcement of laws, particularly when the public perceives a threat to national security or social order.

Moreover, in cases involving foreigners in serious crimes, there can be additional concerns about the fairness of legal proceedings and whether they receive a sufficiently harsh punishment, reflecting the perceived leniency in some cases.

The case also touches on broader issues related to international relations. Malaysia has a history of cooperating with international law enforcement agencies, such as Interpol, to handle the cross-border movement of illegal weapons. Foreign nationals involved in serious crimes in Malaysia can raise diplomatic concerns, particularly if their home country takes an interest in the case.

However, Malaysia has no diplomatic ties with Israel. Furthermore, while there is no public information or evidence regarding whether the Israeli government has been directly involved in this case, the situation could potentially lead to further international scrutiny over how Malaysia handles crimes involving foreign nationals.

Additionally, this case sheds light on the issue of firearm trafficking in Southeast Asia, which is a known problem. Malaysia is geographically located near regions where firearms are often illegally trafficked, especially from conflict zones. The presence of illegal firearms can lead to a variety of dangerous situations, including the use of such weapons in serious crimes.

This case may also stimulate discussions around potential legal reforms in Malaysia. Some might argue that the country’s firearm laws should be revised to ensure harsher penalties for those involved in illegal possession, regardless of nationality. Others may call for more proactive law enforcement measures aimed at preventing the illegal trade and distribution of firearms, rather than merely responding to offences after they occur.

In terms of criminal justice, there may be calls for more consistent sentencing practices to avoid perceptions of leniency, particularly in high-profile cases. If public opinion continues to criticise the sentence, there could be greater pressure on the judiciary to adopt stricter guidelines for such offences in the future.

The case of Shalom highlights the seriousness of illegal firearms possession in Malaysia, the potential consequences for national security, and the controversy surrounding the lenient sentence he received. While Shalom’s plea deal and guilty plea might have led to a reduced sentence, the societal reaction reflects deep concern about public safety and the deterrent effect of such lenient punishment.

As this case reverberates through Malaysian society, it raises questions about how the country balances justice, deterrence, and international relations in handling serious crimes, particularly those involving foreign nationals and firearms.

Thus, the establishment of a Sentencing Guidelines Committee and a Criminal Justice System Committee in Malaysia has become an urgent necessity due to the growing need for legal reform and consistency in the country’s judicial processes.

The current absence of such committees has led to disparities in sentencing and judicial decisions, creating a system that is often seen as inconsistent and unpredictable. Without a clear set of guidelines, judges rely heavily on their discretion, leading to different interpretations of the law and varying outcomes in similar cases. This not only undermines public confidence in the legal system but also jeopardises the principles of fairness and equality that the justice system is built upon.

The urgency of this reform cannot be overstated, as Malaysia’s justice system requires an overhaul to remain credible, accountable, and just in the eyes of its citizens.

DATO’ DR P. SUNDRAMOORTHY
Criminologist
Centre for Policy Research
Universiti Sains Malaysia