Can you spot the difference?

By Eyes Wide Open

Utusan carried this report today:


AIM bantah keputusan dakwa peserta demonstrasi

KUALA LUMPUR 10 Sept. – Sebuah pertubuhan hak asasi manusia hari ini membantah keputusan pihak berkuasa untuk mendakwa peserta demonstrasi bagi membantah pemindahan kuil ke Seksyen 23 Shah Alam, dekat sini di bawah Akta Hasutan dan Seksyen 27 Akta Polis.

Penyelaras Kempen Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM), K. Shan berkata, pihaknya berpendapat Akta Hasutan dan Seksyen 27 Akta Polis adalah undang-undang sembarangan yang menghakis kebebasan rakyat untuk bersuara dan berhimpun di negara ini.

‘‘Semua pihak harus diberi kebenaran untuk menganjurkan perhimpunan awam. Ini adalah hak asasi yang dijamin di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat (UDHR),” katanya dalam kenyataan di sini hari ini.


Wow…the cow head protestors (CHeaPs) got some heavyweight defenders, huh? Amnesty International, man – the same guys who are fighting for Aung Saan Suu Kyi’s legal/human rights as an opposition politician!

Don’t play, play! The CHeaPs are now in the same league as the nternationally-recognised politically oppressed!

It would seem that AIM is really concerned about the CHeaPs wouldn’t it? Just what possessed these AIM dudes to defend a bunch of people preaching intolerance, spreading unrest and threatening violence?

It would seem that they’re defending the CHeaPs, until you go to the AIM website and read their media statement in full. Then (of course!) a much different story emerges.

This is an excerpt from the media statement quoted by Utusan:


“It is in the public interest that threats of violence or hatred be subjected to legal process as the act is clearly penal in nature and imposes a threat to person’s security directly. However criminalising an insensitive and provocative action or gesture in the context of Sedition or under Section 298 of Penal Code give an adverse effect as the line that separates between sensitivity, provocation and legitimate expression of ideas and opinions remains unclear. This would undermine public debate and campaign on matters that touches on religion and other controversial issues as it will be deemed as sensitive hence seditious and criminal in nature. Such development is indeed unhealthy in a multi racial and multi religious democratic country like Malaysia.

Amnesty International Malaysia calls on the government to:

1. Initiate a high level multiparty effort beyond political interest and put effort in resolving the conflict, insensitive act and animosity, and work towards reconciliation and better race and religious understanding; and

2. Repeal the Sedition Act and Section 27 of the Police Act.

AIM also calls on the State to review the charge of sedition and Section 27, and limit the legal process to the actual act of threat of violence and hatred as provided by Penal Code in fair and just manner.”


So…the AIM is NOT defending the cow head protestors, because they do call for the CHeaPs to be “subjected to legal process” (meaning charge them in court for hate speech and threats of violence).

What they’re saying is that they are OPPOSED TO USING THE SEDITION ACT to charge them, instead of other laws that do not infringe on human rights. Which is fine, since the Sedition Act has been blatantly abused to silence outspoken government critics like Lim Guan Eng and RPK in the past. 

AIM’s statement actually brings up another interesting observation.

How come all the Pakatan politicians who constantly denounce the ISA, Sedition Act, Printing and Publications Act, etc as undemocratic and call for their abolishment have nothing to say about it now that it is being used against UMNO agents?


Anyway, AIM’s statement is pretty consistent with their principles. (Although I personally feel they could have worded their statement more carefully so that it wouldn’t have been so easily hijacked by the spinmeisters!)

But everything’s fair game in Malaysian politics and media apparently.

So should be we surprised at such blatant twisting of facts? Are we indignant enough to campaign for these purveyors of falsehood to be boycotted?

3 Responses to “Can you spot the difference?”
  1. Meng says:

    PR politicians should not intefere. Let umno guys feel the heat and see how they would react. After all the cow head demo was against the PR govt and Hindus…

  2. chong says:

    after the by election, there will be no further action.

    worse still, they will reverse the arrow and shoot at the messengers, claiming they are exploiting the racial / religious issue.

    that’s 1 malaysia.


    Sounds like fixing the tune to suit one’s song
    Trying one’s best to cover up whatever that’s wrong
    Attempting to justify oneself from any position that’s strong
    But we know evil doers don’t have stamina that lasts long

    (C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng – 110909
    Fri. 11th Sept. 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: