On Sunday (April 7), Professor James Chin of the University of Tasmania posted a worrying note on his Facebook page. Reproducing a response from X he noted: “Madani Govt is working hard to crack down on people like me...”
As a rejoinder, he posted a note from X which read: “In the interest of transparency, we are writing to inform you that X has received a request from MCMC (Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission) regarding your X accounts that claims the following violates (the) law of Malaysia.”
(It was a link to a video clip widely circulated in Sabah and Sarawak.)
The postscript read: “We have not taken any action.”
Compare this with what I had to undergo when I forwarded a WhatsApp message to the MCMC on March 23. I sent a video and a screen capture of Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh’s Facebook post showing him wielding a traditional Japanese sword.
I felt these images were disturbing and that the MCMC should use its powers to remove them.
Startling response
What followed startled me. The same night, I received a reply part of which read: “Can I seek your help to email the questions to this email address at corporate.communications@mcmc.gov.my so that we can do the necessary follow-up?”
Does it imply that action would only be taken if complaints are sent via email? Or is this a ploy to prevent the public from making complaints?
Was it incompetency, an indifferent attitude or simply making things easy for themselves to tap the forward button for someone else to handle?
Nevertheless, I sent an email the following day, and on Monday, I received a call from a friendly officer who said a reply had been sent, via email of course.
It was a lengthy reply that included the following: “The Commission collaborates closely with the police which is the leading law enforcement agency on sensitive matters involving race, religion, and royal institutions.
“We provide technical expertise, including intelligence and forensics analysis, for the police to expedite investigations and ensure appropriate action can be taken under relevant legislation like the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) and Penal Code (Act 574).
“The collaboration is also expanded through the establishment of the ‘Police–MCMC Investigation Task Force of 3R Cases’ in combating online content that threatens national harmony.
“In addition to requests from other leading law enforcement agencies and public complaints, MCMC also proactively monitors, takes down, investigates, and enforces the law against any content violating Section 233 of Act 588, regardless of background, ideology, or political affiliation.”
No action on complaint
Satisfied that there had been corroboration with the police, I decided to wait for a further response before I put pen to paper.
Imagine the surprise when on April 3 - a good 10 days later - Inspector-General of Police Razarudin Husain said no reports had been lodged against Akmal over his Facebook post that showed him wielding the sword.
This means that the MCMC had sat on my complaint and did not refer my complaint to the police or the Police–MCMC Investigation Task Force for appropriate action, as claimed.
Do I have reason to believe the complaint was classified as “no further action” and filed in a steel cupboard to gather dust?
Certainly. Why else would the IGP say that no report was made? And it leads me to believe that MCMC is selective in the application of laws and their enforcement.
The drama continued. On April 4, Akmal confirmed on his Facebook page that he was arrested in Kota Kinabalu, saying he was held despite being scheduled to record his statement at the Dang Wangi police headquarters in Kuala Lumpur the following day.
But who came to the fore to comment after weeks of silence?
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim stepped on the plate to say Akmal was not arrested but called up to facilitate an investigation.
Akmal himself confirmed he was arrested but did Anwar know better?
Different strokes
On March 22, Ricky Shane Cagampang, 33, pleaded guilty in the Kota Kinabalu Sessions Court to making a Facebook post deemed insulting to Islam concerning the sale of socks bearing the word Allah.
He was charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 with misusing network facilities on March 17 and sentenced to six months jail and an RM15,000 fine.
The case was investigated, the offender was arrested, got the nod from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, produced in court, convicted and sent to prison - all in five days.
Surely, it must be a record of sorts and the police force must be proud of itself. Will it be emulated in other cases involving the offence of misusing network facilities?
We wait with bated breath but something still lingers in my mind.
Chin has yet to be investigated for the post. He was not the maker or publisher of the video and yet MCMC wanted his post removed.
My complaint about a sword-wielding politician was ignored.
Are lesser mortals Chin and I treated differently from the loud-mouthed politicians who can do or say anything with total disregard for the law?
Different strokes for different folks or are we headed for a police state? - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.