Stop this public lynching - Lim Teck Ghee

JU LY 19, 201 3

The decision of the AG to charge Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee marks the half-way point in the public lynching of these two young people. What were they guilty of? A moment of unthinking madness; an act of stupidity and idiocy; a prank in bad taste; racial and religious insensitivity; youthful arrogance yes, these criticisms and much more in the way of scorn and public shame and odium can be heaped on their foolish and misguided attempt to draw attention to themselves. But to charge them for sedition and for a criminal act under the penal code! And then to deny them bail as if they are a major threat to public peace and order. Please! Let us not forget that prominent politicians guilty of even more in your face racial and religious taunting have got away scot free, with the last notable racist political figure even put up as a candidate during the recent election. And what about even earlier incidents such as kris brandishing? Come on, Malaysia! Alvin and Vivian have already apologized for their offensive Selamat Berbuka Puasa greeting, calling it their stupidest stunt and reiterating that it was done in humour. In a youtube posting available to everyone who should view it first before calling for their heads to be off, Alvin said, We are recording this video to ask for forgiveness for offending Muslims in this holy month of Ramadan. We sincerely regret offending religious beliefs and sensitivities in multi-cultural Malaysia. He also said that they had no intent to insult or ridicule the Muslim faith, nor incite racial conflict. In most societies except the most blinkered, the authorities and public would have moved on to more important matters. But not in Malaysia where foaming politicians and retired politicians have bayed for the young couples blood and are urging our independent and impartial judiciary to impose the most serious punishment possible.

Alvin had ended the video by saying selamat Aidilfitri dan maaf zahir batin (happy Aidilfitri and apologies for all discretions). He may not be genuinely repentant. But shouldnt we give him the benefit of the doubt. Apparently to the lynching and vigilante mob, this plea for forgiveness and compassion is not enough. Viewing (mainly with pity and sadness) what is happening to this young couple and the innocent youth who had the words "Saya hina agama Islam" scrawled on his chest, leads me to wonder what has happened to us in this country that we can allow a few political and religious leaders, the media and our authorities to make a national controversy over a mindless stunt by two young people, blow it out of all rational proportion and act as if they are speaking on behalf of moderate Malaysians. Alvin and Vivian invited this on themselves when they stupidly posted their crude prank. By surrendering to the lynch mob, we dishonour our core values of humanity, compassion and mercy. - cpiasia.net, July 19, 2013.

Dr Lim Teck Ghee is a director of the Center for Policy Initiatives

No bail for Alvivi an 'overkill', say lawyers

Malaysiakini 7 hours ago

Not granting bail for infamous bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee is "overkill", said lawyers. They said that it is also "extremely rare" for bail not to be granted, be it for offences under the Sedition Act or Film Censorship Act under which the duo were charged, and especially for "minor" offences. "It is overkill...Even the ' pramugara terlampau ' was allowed bail. Offences under the Film Censorship Act are not heinous offences," lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad said referring to the 2003 cases involving a former flight attendant. In the 2003 case, Mohd Rizal Mat Yusof was granted bail of RM8,500 after he claimed trial to producing or making a pornographic video compact disc (VCD) that allegedly starred several 'air stewardesses' in lewd acts, titled ' Kehidupan Pramugara Yang Terlampau '. However, Mohd Rizal was charged under Section 292 (a) of the Penal Code and not the Film Censorship Act 2002.

Tan and Lee were charged under subsection 4 (1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 298A (1)(a) of the Penal Code, and subsection 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for displaying pornographic pictures on their 'sex blog'. The prosecution asked the sessions court not to grant bail as offences under the said subsections of the Penal Code and Film Censorship Act are non-bailable offences. Amer Hamzah ( left ) added that by denying bail, the court is equating the offence with offences which carry the death penalty. "Even in rape cases there is the possibility of bail. Sometimes when the accused knows the victim, bail may not be granted for fear of (victim) intimidation but we see bail granted even for the recent Sukma (athlete) rape case," he said. 'No evidence' given for denying bail According to lawyer Syahredzan Johan ( below ), when an offence is "non-bailable", the granting of bail is at the court's discretion. However, the decision should be made on legal principles, including on whether the offence was grave, or if there is possibility of flight risk or the tendency to interfere with witnesses. He said in the duo's case, the offences were "relatively minor" and the prosecution did not put forth any evidence to show that the duo are a flight risk or that they will interfere with witnesses. "In any event, the judge can always impose conditions to say that if they post similar messages, bail is revoked," he said in a text message to Malaysiakini . Lawyers for Liberty co-founder Eric Paulsen added that the duo clearly did not pose a flight risk as they had "cooperated fully with the police and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC)". "There was no evidence offered by DPP Noordin Badaruddin, other than her flimsy statement that both accused were infamous and had a tendency to upload pictures that could arouse public outrage. "This is wrong in law and by denying bail at this stage clearly shows bad faith and an attempt to punish the duo even before their guilt has been proven," Paulsen said in a statement.

Link to abduction case speculation The statement of Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail ( left ) linking his chambers' decision to a recent abduction case also indicates that outside elements may figure in the decision not to grant bail, Amer Hamzah said. "It is speculation to say that it has anything to do with the case at all," he said, noting that public pressure may have factored into the decision. Agreeing with his colleagues, lawyer Edmund Bon said public pressure and comments from politicians on both sides of the political divide may have factored into the decision to deny bail, "even if indirectly". "There is a danger that the public is going after something that will not translate to justice," Bon said. He added that the hype surrounding the duo may also affect the trial, and the defence could argue that Tan and Lee cannot get a fair trial. "We have not seen this in Malaysia, but it could lead to the trial being stayed permanently or for the trial to be heard again under a different judge," he said. Bar Council Human Rights Committee chief Andrew Khoo added that public interest should not be a consideration as to whether bail should be granted. "It appears the intent was to send them to jail as an immediate punishment... before they are found guilty. The law should not be abused for this end," Khoo said when contacted. Additional reporting by Nigel Aw

Free Alvivi, charge real hate speech makers

JULY 19, 2013 LATEST UPDATE: JULY 19, 2013 04:07 PM Zan Azlee I had made it a point to not comment in my writings or even mention in any conversations that I had about the Alvivi bak kut teh puasa incident. They are obviously cheap attention seekers who deserve not even a single ounce of my time and intellect.

But what the authorities did by charging the idiotic couple in court for sedition and pornography is just the wrong way to handle things. Hate speech is hate speech and can be very dangerous but it doesn't take a genius to distinguish actual hateful intentions and just plain stupidity. And Alvilvi is just obviously plain stupidity. And just like the rest of us, I wish we could jail people for stupidity too. But we can't. Now let's look at the real hate speech makers out there that have actual intentions of hate and are getting away with it scot-free. First up is Ridhuan Tee Abdullah who, week after week, spews out condemnation on nonMuslims and non-Malays in his newspaper column (although a non-Malay himself). What happens to him? He gets the backing of the ruling political powers who obligingly launches his books and introduces him at public "ceramahs". Then there is Datuk Zulkifli Noordin who seems to have a vengeance against Malaysians who are of the Hindu persuasion, and belittles and insults the religion. He becomes a "friend" of our ruling political powers and is even given a ticket to contest in the general election (thank Ganesha he lost!). But the one that takes the cake has to be Malaysia's number one chief hate speech maker, Datuk Ibrahim Ali, or who a journalist friend of mine likes to call "Comical Ali". Here's a person who can actually get away with threatening to burn a holy book, the Bible nonetheless, and continues to be given the media limelight. "Comical Ali" is whole-heartedly fighting against freedom of religion in Malaysia and constantly pushing his agenda of Malay supremacy. It's like Hitler incarnate. So, as much as I hate what Alvivi did on their Facebook page, I see it as pure stupidity on their part. They should be punished and learn from what they did. But by charging them in court, the authorities are just reaffirming how they are practicing double standards in this beautiful country of ours. Then they should also bring to court people like my nemesis Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Zulkifli Noordin and "Comical Ali" for their actions, which were definitely premeditated. Oh, and how could I have forgotten about Alvivi's pornography charge. Yes! And we have our great Chinese leader, Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, who seems to be well-loved by a party that isn't. So my final words - Free Alvivi! - July 19, 2013. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

LFL: Alvin Tan and Vivian Lees prosecution and denial of bail are heavy handed and overkill
Press Statement 19 July 2013 Lawyers for Liberty are shocked and appalled by the heavy handed criminal prosecution of Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court yesterday that was further compounded when they were denied bail by judge Murtazadi Amran. They were charged under section 4 (1) (c) of the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 298A (1) (a) of the Penal Code for their Ramadan bak kut teh greeting on their Facebook page and section 5 (1) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for uploading pornography onto their blog. Although the charges under the Penal Code and the Film Censorship Act were nonbailable offences, in practice bail is normally given (as in cases of more serious offences like rape, criminal breach of trust, robbery, cheating, corruption, drug possession and manslaughter) unless clear evidence can be shown that the accused were likely to abscond, interfere with witnesses or reoffend. In this particular case, the duo had cooperated fully with the police and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and no evidence was offered by DPP Noorin Badaruddin other than her flimsy statement that both accused were infamous and had a tendency to upload pictures that could arouse public outrage. This is wrong in law and by denying bail at this stage clearly showed bad faith and an attempt to punish the duo even before their guilt has been proven. While the duos posting is clearly insensitive and foolish, the reaction of the authorities from the police, MCMC, Attorney-Generals Chambers to senior government ministers smacked of overkill, disproportionality, double standards, selectiveness and bad faith when much more offensive and widely published statements made by pro-Umno figures Ibrahim Ali, Ridhuan Tee, Zulkifli Noordin, Mohd Noor Abdullah including inciting bloodshed and violence, insults against ethnic Chinese and Indians, their beliefs and cultures have not led to any arrest much less criminal prosecution.

We call upon the authorities to discharge their duties in a professional manner, to exercise even handedness and restraint and not to overreact and make an example out of Alvin and Vivian in order to score political points. At the very least, they should be provided a fair trial and be granted bail pending their trial. Released by: Eric Paulsen Co-founder & Adviser Lawyers for Liberty For more information, please contact: Off: 03-7960 5688 Mobile: 017-6768 106 E-mail: epaulsenzero@yahoo.com www.lawyersforliberty.org Twitter: @lawyers4liberty

Bak kut teh and the kind way to deal with Alvivi
Lau Bing 5:37PM Jul 19, 2013 Malaysians are surprised and bemused to know that the judge had sent the two bloggers namely; Alvin Tan Jye Yee and Vivian Lee May Ling, to 37 days in jail before they were proven guilty of their actions. Why so odd, sending them for 37 days in jail, what has this number 37 to do with the two jokers? Largely there are other ways to deal with both these controversial bloggers, but instead the judge is making a mockery of the law, using the law unfairly, inhumanely, unjustifiably, to send off the two to jail without trial or rather before they are found guilty for their actions. What happens if both of them are released eventually due to insufficient proof or availability of concrete evidence or grounds to charge them? Does this mean the public will soon see another million ringgit lawsuit against the government for wrongful detention? Some quarters see the wrong use of the law to send people straight to jail before they are found guilty for the offence, and particularly for this bak kut teh case, it is indeed outrageous and against the practice of human rights and freedom of speech. Look, I believe you have seen on TV over time that even US President Barrack Obama, the British Queen and other top guns have been ridiculed, intimidated and criticised on air but yet no one comes forward to charge the TV station or the TV host for allowing such contents to come on air. This is true freedom of speech.

Okay, lets first try to decipher the words bak kut teh one by one. In the old days, coolies, and businessmen liked going out at dusk with their work mates to spend time out to chit-chat over a bowl of bak kut teh because there was hardly a place where they could sit down especially in the open air to eat, drink and talk after a hard days work for just one or two dollars (now ringgit). And, they are sold until the wee hours of the night, because business starts from 7pm onwards until everything is sold out. For those who wee affluent, they would go to the cabarets to listen to music and songs, to dine and unwind alone or with friends in Bukit Bintang, in the Eastern Hotel, or Federal Hotel. Of course they could also dance too to the live band played there with their lady companion or dance hostesses for less than a dollar. But not the poor. Well, bak kut teh has been associated from the very beginning with people from the Hokkien community and it is a Hokkien name for the dish that comes with the first word bak for meat, kut for bones or rather for spare ribs and teh for Chinese tea. So when a customer orders for a bowl of bak kut teh, he or she does not need to pay for Chinese tea because it comes as a set of three items in the old days. That means he or she will get meat, bones (spare ribs) and Chinese tea. That brings us to the specifics for the word bak, since it means meat, then, bak could be any meat such as beef, mutton, chicken or pork. However, its a matter of preference and choices and its servings depending on where you go for your bowl. So as long both the controversial bloggers did not shout, pork in public places then their acts cannot be offensive in nature though they have uttered the words, bak kut teh, in that one could have any kind of meat in his or her bowl of bak kut teh. Anyway, not everybody goes online to read Alvivis postings. I am one of those who dont and I will not try to go online to see it. I am urging the relevant government body to release the couple, as what they can do instead is to temporarily confiscate their passports and have them report to the nearest police station once every two weeks for good behaviour for say six months, thereafter, their passports would be returned to them and they can also stop going to the police station. The writer is a community activist from Subang Jaya.

This is not about, dare I say it, pigs

First Published: 6:41pm, Jul 19, 2013 Last Updated: 8:42pm, Jul 19, 2013 WE all know that Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee did with the "bak kut teh" invite and all. So I'm not going to drag everybody through all that nonsense again. And we all know the anger they triggered among Muslims and non-Muslims. So I'm not going to repeat the angry words and the calls for them to be "lynched". Instead let's take a look at Mohamad Hanipa Madin, the lawyer-cum-PAS MP for Sepang. Rather what he said recently about the couple via a statement carried by The Malaysian Insider. To Hanipa, the couple should be given a chance to "redeem" for their mistakes. "Any act of insulting religion, any faith for that matter, is despicable," said Hanipa. But in this case both have apologised and should be given a chance and not repeat what they had done.

Islam, said Hanipa, is a about compassion and also "agama rahmah" or religion of mercy. "So I feel there's nothing wrong for Muslims to accept their apology." He is suggesting a "soft and delicate" approach be used so that "negative thoughts the couple have towards the religion can be removed. He cited a case of a non-Muslim poet in the days of Prophet Muhamad. The poet, said Hanipa, would often insult the prophet until one of the prophet's companion, Umar al Khatab, could not take it anymore that he wanted to pull off the teeth of the poet. "The prophet prevented Umar from doing so. Finally the poet embraced Islam and put his skills to good use in propagating the religion," said Hanipa, quoting Islamic history. "Islam will not be weakened by the insulting act of the couple and Islam will not be strengthened by our loud call for action to be taken against them using draconian laws such as the Sedition Act," Hanipa was quoted as saying. Anyway, reaction to Hanipa statement was missed as expected. And he had his share of angry words. Hanipa, and to an extent PAS, were told to "stop playing politics as GE is over ". Also, he (and PAS of course) stand accused of "encouraging act of insulting islam in the holy month of Ramadan". By sheer coincidence or not, on the same day Hanipa made his statement, the AFP news agency ran a report from Australia. According to the report, Australian police have began investigations after the remains of two pigs including their heads and entrails were dumped at a Muslim cemetery in a memorial park near Perth. The incident comes during the month of Ramadan. Iqbal Samnakay, chairman of Perth Muslim social and sports association, said the desecration of any burial site. Muslim or not was offensive. As for using pigs to carry such an act, he had this to say: "As Muslims, we are not meant to eat pigs but that doesn't mean we should not respect them for what they are". And Samnakay went on to say whoever left the carcasses at the cemetery should be forgiven as it is Ramadan, the "month of forgiveness". Selamat berpuasa all. Mohsin Abdullahis a specialist writer at fz.com. He likes rojak. And nasi campur. And durians. Perhaps thats why he writes about this, that and everything else. Pretty much rojak and nasi campur. As for his writings, well, they can be like durians. Aromatic and delicious to some people, smelly and off-putting to others. Read more: http://www.fz.com/content/not-about-dare-i-say-it-pigs#ixzz2ZVdiZFZH

Sex bloggers file revision to get bail

B Y V. AN BA L AG A N , A SSIS TA NT NE WS EDI TO R J UL Y 1 9, 20 13 L AT EST UP DA TE : J UL Y 19 , 2 01 3 0 6: 12 PM

Sex bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee, who are in prison after failing to obtain bail, have filed for a revision in the High Court. Their lawyer Chong Joo Tian said the appllication was filed today and hoped the matter could be heard next week. "We have filed a revision on the refusal of the Sessions Court to offer bail to my clients and to challenge the decision to have a joint trial," he said. A revision is a speedier way for the High Court to hear contentious issues instead of an appeal. They have been charged under Section 5 of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for publishing indecent photographs online between July 6 and 7. If found guilty, they can be fined not less than RM10,000 or not more than RM50,000 and/or face a jail term not exceeding five years. The other charges thrown at them are Section 298A of the Penal Code for promoting enmity between different groups of religion or race and doing acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony, by publishing an offensive Ramadan greeting, which carries a minimum jail term of two years or a maximum of five years; and Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 for posting seditious material through said offensive greeting which carries a maximum fine of RM5,000. Sessions Judge Murtazadi Amran had allowed the prosecution to hold trial at one go although the offences were allegedly committeed under three different laws. Chong said his clients would be prejudiced if a simulataneous hearing was held. "We agree to a joint-trial under the Sedition Act and the Penal Code. The charge under the Film Censorship Act must be separate," he said. - July 19, 2013.

10