DAP men denounce 'abuse of discretion' in racial incitement cases.
FMT
PETALING JAYA: Two DAP MPs today decried what one of them called an “abuse of discretion” by the authorities in treating cases of alleged incitement of communal hatred.
They pointed to recent cases of offenders being let off for the apparent reason that they happened to be Umno members or supporters.
Serdang MP Ong Kian Ming, in a press statement that condemned the police for refusing to act against Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn Malay-language Bibles, asked whether Bible burning was now acceptable in Malaysia.
Referring to a police statement that Ibrahim’s outburst was “not intended to incite religious tension but to protect the sanctity of Islam”, Ong asked: “Does this mean that one can now threaten to burn the sacred texts of other religions all in the name of protecting one’s own religion?”
He also criticised the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute KL Umno Youth Chief Razlan Rafii, who was investigated under the Penal Code for threatening to burn down the DAP headquarters last May.
He asked whether the AG was tacitly approving the torching of buildings belonging to opposition parties.
Puchong MP Gobind Singh denounced the leniency shown towards an Umno divisional leader Mohamad Azli Mohamed Saad who recently called for the abolition of Chinese schools.
Referring to a police statement that police had dismissed the case as a civil matter, he said, “This is absolute nonsense.”
Gobind recalled the case of former MP Mark Koding, who was convicted of sedition for a speech he made in Parliament, in which he advocated the closure of Chinese and Tamil schools.
“I call upon the Attorney-General to explain,” he said. “Is there a double standard here?
“If a member of Parliament could have been hauled up and charged for sedition for saying that, why not the Umno politician?
“Is this not another classic example of the abuse of discretion when it comes to the use of the Sedition Act? Why is it used against some and not others in cases which present similar facts?
“Are we not entitled, in the absence of any reasonable explanation to the contrary, to say that this is evidence of selective prosecution?”
PETALING JAYA: Two DAP MPs today decried what one of them called an “abuse of discretion” by the authorities in treating cases of alleged incitement of communal hatred.
They pointed to recent cases of offenders being let off for the apparent reason that they happened to be Umno members or supporters.
Serdang MP Ong Kian Ming, in a press statement that condemned the police for refusing to act against Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn Malay-language Bibles, asked whether Bible burning was now acceptable in Malaysia.
Referring to a police statement that Ibrahim’s outburst was “not intended to incite religious tension but to protect the sanctity of Islam”, Ong asked: “Does this mean that one can now threaten to burn the sacred texts of other religions all in the name of protecting one’s own religion?”
He also criticised the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute KL Umno Youth Chief Razlan Rafii, who was investigated under the Penal Code for threatening to burn down the DAP headquarters last May.
He asked whether the AG was tacitly approving the torching of buildings belonging to opposition parties.
Puchong MP Gobind Singh denounced the leniency shown towards an Umno divisional leader Mohamad Azli Mohamed Saad who recently called for the abolition of Chinese schools.
Referring to a police statement that police had dismissed the case as a civil matter, he said, “This is absolute nonsense.”
Gobind recalled the case of former MP Mark Koding, who was convicted of sedition for a speech he made in Parliament, in which he advocated the closure of Chinese and Tamil schools.
“I call upon the Attorney-General to explain,” he said. “Is there a double standard here?
“If a member of Parliament could have been hauled up and charged for sedition for saying that, why not the Umno politician?
“Is this not another classic example of the abuse of discretion when it comes to the use of the Sedition Act? Why is it used against some and not others in cases which present similar facts?
“Are we not entitled, in the absence of any reasonable explanation to the contrary, to say that this is evidence of selective prosecution?”
No comments:
Post a Comment