Sock-gate: LFL decries alleged double standards in prosecutions

Why are “big shots” and vigilantes allowed to walk free by fanning the flame on the socks bearing the word “Allah” issue, while unknown individuals get jailed for commenting on the issue online, Lawyers for Liberty has asked.

In a statement, the human rights group's director Zaid Malek referred to the jailing and fines imposed on two individuals, namely Chiok Wai Loong and Ricky Shane Cagampang, under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, for posting offensive Facebook comments on the socks controversy.

"First of all, the six-month jail sentence is excessive for a first-time offender. Courts must decide cases based on facts and disregard the publicity surrounding a case.

"It is hoped that the High Court will step in under its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the excessive sentence," Zaid said today.

He noted that Chiok was not represented by a lawyer during his charge and questioned whether the National Legal Aid Foundation or the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre were informed if Chiok could not afford a lawyer.

Zaid further decried the leaking of Chiok's personal details online, which led to vigilante groups unlawfully tracking and intimidating him into confessing.

"While Chiok was arrested, charged and swiftly jailed, what action has been taken against the vigilante group that took the law into their own hands and committed several potential offences?

"These include offences under Section 503 Penal Code for criminal intimidation, Section 505(b) for statements causing mischief and ironically, Section 233 of the CMA as well.

"Why are the police so quick to act against Chiok, but have taken no action against this vigilante group? Is mob rule now permitted in Malaysia?"

'Govt pandering to bigots'

Zaid further noted the lack of action against "big political personalities" who are fuelling fire into the matter.

"These politicians, particularly from Umno, framed what appears to any reasonable person as a supply mistake by KK Supermart as some kind of full-blown insult to Islam.

"This led to an active ‘lynch-mob’ campaign against anyone who made comments on the issue which may be regarded as insensitive by vigilante-type groups," he said.

While Zaid did not mention names, it is believed in reference to Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh who has been at the forefront of the boycott call against KK Mart.

Umno Youth chief Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh

Zaid then called Section 233 of the CMA a threat to civil liberties and is frequently used to prosecute ordinary persons for social media comments.

"Social media posts by unknown individuals do not harm the fabric of society; roadside justice and public disgracing of individuals for perceived slights, however, are harmful behaviours that must be combatted and met with stern action.

"The law is not to be executed at the whims and fancy of the group that cries out the loudest. The decision to prosecute the men under Section 233 of the CMA amounts to selective prosecution, which is repugnant to the rule of law," said Zaid.

He also berated the government for being unable to distinguish between ignorant or idiotic behaviour and actual harmful content, in addition to pandering to overzealous bigots on racial and religious controversies.

"We remind the government that they have a duty to maintain the social fabric of our multicultural and multireligious society.

"Such duty is not confined to criminal prosecutions but must be primarily addressed through holistic open dialogues of communication and education,” he stressed. - Mkini