Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 28.10.2014.
Double-Standards And Selective Prosecution Of The Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) In Refusing To Charge Ibrahim Ali, For His Inflammatory Calls To Burn Malay And Iban Copies Of The Bible With The Word “Allah”, Which Is No Different From Behaving Like A Defence Counsel For Ibrahim Ali, All Due To Cabinet’s Tacit Approval And Indifference Towards The Rights Of Non-Muslims.
The double-standards and selective prosecution of the Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) in refusing to charge Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali, for his inflammatory calls to burn Malay and Iban copies of the Bible with the word “Allah”, which is no different from behaving like a defence counsel for Ibrahim Ali, is all due to cabinet’s tacit approval and indifference towards the rights of non-Muslims. Even though several Cabinet members have individually opined that Ibrahim Ali should be charged for trampling with impunity over the sensitivities of Christians, they have all passively submitted to Cabinet’s decision to fully endorse the AGC’s decision to let Ibrahim Ali escaped unpunished.
This is highlighted by de facto Minister of Law Nancy Shukri who merely “read out” her written answer to my question in Parliament justifying that Ibrahim Ali would not be charged because he was merely defending Islam. Worse she compounded that error of an answer with an even worse grievous error by stating that this is in line with the Federal Constitution. So far Nancy Shukri has still not explained where in the Federal Constitution or in the Holy Quran, is stated that burning Bibles is justifiable to defend Islam.
The AGC’s explanation yesterday that Ibrahim’s call for Bibles to be burned must be viewed in its entire context, adding that the Perkasa chief’s statement was aimed at the Bibles distributed to Muslim students of SMK Jelutong in Penang, is wholly ridiculous. Where is it stated under sedition laws that an exception can be made for a statement made with seditious tendencies merely because of the context it was viewed?
When I was convicted and imprisoned for 18 months under the Sedition Act in 1998 for defending a minor who was raped but “imprisoned” whilst her rapists escaped scot-free, even speaking out the truth is no defence against the sedition charge so long as a seditious tendency can be proved. DAP does not approve of sedition laws but if the government wants to apply it, they must apply it fairly and impartially. Practicing double-standards like in Ibrahim’s case clearly shows that the sedition law is a weapon of mass destruction against BNs political opponents.
The AGC stressed that when studied in its entire context, Ibrahim’s statement is not categorised as having seditious tendencies because it was clear that Ibrahim Ali had no intention to create religious tensions, but was only defending the purity of Islam. Why then was I still convicted when I showed that my intention was to defend the purity of justice? The AGC should charge Ibrahim Ali and let the courts decide.
The AGC also confirmed that the Bibles were distributed outside the school in Jelutong, Penang last year, but said it had decided to close the case because there was no proof that the religious texts were meant for Malay students alone. What is even more incomprehensible was that the distribution of the Bibles that caused Ibrahim Ali to call for it to be burned, was not in Bahasa Malaysia nor in Iban but in English and did not contain the word Allah.
Clearly the AGC is engaging in sheer nonsense by claiming that the faith of Muslim students is at stake when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem and Sarawak Governor Tun Abdul Taib Mahmud attended Christian missionary schools without having their faith shaken nor were there any recorded cases of missionary schools attempting to convert their Muslim students.
LIM GUAN ENG
— CN Version —
民主行动党秘书长兼峇眼区国会议员林冠英于2014年10月28日在吉隆坡发表文告：
___________________________________________________________________________
伊布拉欣发表煽动言论，呼吁焚烧马来文及伊班文版本圣经，因为这些经典里头含有“阿拉”字眼，但总检察署却不予提控，反而像是辩护律师般为其背书，这在在显示总检察署的双重标准及选择性提控，还有内阁的默许，完全无视于非穆斯林国民的权益。
___________________________________________________________________________
土权主席伊布拉欣发表煽动言论，呼吁焚烧马来文及伊班文版本圣经，因为这些经典里头含有“阿拉”字眼，但总检察署却不予提控，反而像是辩护律师般为其背书，这在在显示总检察署的双重标准及选择性提控，还有内阁的默许，完全无视于非穆斯林国民的权益。即便有若干内阁成员个别认为伊布拉欣践踏基督徒的敏感神经，理应受到提控，只是，到了最后这些人都只能被动地附和内阁的议决，全力支持总检察署不提控伊布拉欣，让他免予惩处的决定。
首相署部长南希在“读出”一份事先准备好的答案来回覆我在国会的提问时，清楚表明伊布拉欣将不会被提控，因为后者不过是在捍卫伊斯兰而已。糟糕的是，南希的答案错处连连，更甚的是，她还将联邦宪法一并扯进。南希至今并未解释，联邦宪法或古兰经之中，哪里记载了焚烧圣经是合理地捍卫伊斯兰。
总检察署昨日解释，伊布拉欣发表的“烧圣经论”应该放在整个脉络底下审视，这名土权首领的言论，矛头其实指向派发圣经予槟城日落洞国中穆斯林学生的事件。总检察署的解释是极为荒谬的，试问，煽动法令下可有注明，只要煽动言论的脉络有迹可寻并经过检视，就能被豁免？
1998年，我为一名遭受强暴的弱势者辩护时，却被政府以煽动法令之名拘捕入狱长达18个月，相反的，强暴她人的加害者却能逍遥法外。这起事件上，我只是说出真相来据理力争，谈何企图煽动、触犯煽动法令？民主行动党自始至终从未参与通过国内的煽动法令，但，如果政府执意要通过落实此法，就请公平公正，且全面的执行。在伊布拉欣的个案上持双重标准，只是显示煽动法令不过是国阵握在手上的大规模毁灭性武器而已。
总检察署强调，他们研究有关伊布拉欣言论的脉络后发现，后者只是单纯地想要捍卫伊斯兰的纯正性，所以不能将之归纳为含有煽动意图。我想请问，当初我也不过是想要捍卫司法公义的纯正性，可是为何最终仍然被定罪？我认为，总检察署应该就此事提控伊布拉欣，再交由法庭来定夺。
总检察署也曾确认，去年，槟城日落洞区的确发生过派发圣经的事件，但无法证明这是针对马来学生而来的，因此他们并未追究。令人费解的是，按照这个脉络，伊布拉欣口口声声说要拿去焚烧的圣经，其实并不是以马来文或伊班文书写，这些全是英文版本的圣经，里面亦没有出现“阿拉”的字眼。
明显的，总检察署认为穆斯林学生的信仰遭受动摇的说法纯属无稽之谈。首相拿督斯里纳吉、砂拉越首席部长丹斯里阿德南以及砂拉越元首敦泰益过去都曾待过教会学校，但，他们的信仰动摇了吗？还是曾有什么案例，证明教会学校尝试改变学校内穆斯林学生的信仰？
林冠英