Socks Issue Lawyers Call For Swift Equal Probe Against Vigilantes

---

Authorities should afford vigilante groups the same prompt action they allocated to two men - who were convicted for posting offensive Facebook comments about Islam over the KK Mart socks scandal, lawyers urged.
They were referring to Chiok Wai Loong and Ricky Shane Cagampang, who were sentenced and fined under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588).
Vigilante groups, who took matters into their own hands following the controversy over socks printed with the word Allah, had previously unlawfully tracked and intimidated Chiok and Ricky separately to confess to comments they made online.
Lawyer Andrew Khoo said if the authorities do not give the same speedy investigative attention to the vigilantes, it might suggest that the legal system exists solely to safeguard the interests of those in the “majority position”.
“The inescapable conclusion may be drawn that the rights of the accused, who are deemed to have offended the majority, can be conveniently ignored,” he told Malaysiakini.
Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim and criminal lawyer Rajsurian Pillai also shared Khoo’s sentiments.
Hassan stressed that the police should act fairly as the vigilante groups had taken over the force’s duties - which is wrong under the law.
Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim“Our country has laws, there are police to conduct investigations and arrests and the courts for trials and judgments.
“They (vigilantes) have committed assault and battery, which is a criminal offence. They must be summoned for their statements to be taken for committing offences under the Penal Code.
“If there are grounds for their crimes, the case must be brought to the court,” the PKR lawmaker, who is also a lawyer, said.
Criminal lawyer Goh Cia Yee expressed concerns that the lack of accountability for the vigilantes will further empower and encourage them to take similar actions in the future.
Goh viewed social media as a contributing factor to these actions as it may provide content for influencers by fueling their narcissistic desire to be seen as a protector.
“Their actions may be seen as bragging rights amongst the community.
“However, two wrongs don't make a right and there should not be double standards when it comes to the regulation of public behaviour on a sensitive issue,” he said.
Cases ‘expedited’
The lawyers believed the sensitivity of the controversy had led Chiok and Ricky’s cases to be “expedited”.
In Chiok’s case, Goh pointed out that the prosecution was led by Kuala Lumpur prosecution director Kalmizah Salleh who he claimed rarely makes an appearance for cases involving the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) law.
“Usually their own (MCMC’s) prosecuting officer or deputy public prosecutor would attend (such cases). So, (Chiok’s) case was definitely expedited and given top priority,” he said.
Technician Chiok Wai LoongKhoo said the sensitivity of the issue should not be “an excuse for a rush to judgment” and to dispense with the right of the accused persons to proper and adequate legal representation.
No legal rep
Both Chiok and Ricky were present without a lawyer in court. They pled guilty to their offences.
“The two accused persons should not have been brought to trial without ensuring they were legally represented.
“Adequate legal representation would include having a lawyer to speak on their behalf in mitigation in light of the heaviness of the sentences.
“Indeed, the very sensitivity of the matter makes it all the more necessary that the accused persons have the full protection of all legal safeguards,” Khoo opined.
Rajsurian echoed Khoo’s view, saying that Chiok and Ricky’s cases moved quickly and they may not have received legal advice.
“They (Chiok and Ricky) may not have understood the repercussions of pleading guilty.
“They took action speedily due to pressure from various sides,” he told Malaysiakini.
Hassan also expressed sadness that both men were unrepresented, questioning the whereabouts of the lawyers with the National Legal Aid Foundation.
“If there was an appointed private lawyer or a lawyer from the National Legal Aid Foundation, the lawyer can appeal for a lighter sentence or advise the accused persons to either plead guilty or choose to be tried.
“Under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, it states that it is the right of the accused persons to get the services of a lawyer to represent them in the face of criminal charges,” he added. - Mkini

---