(Kuching, 25th) Global Human Rights Alliance Vice Chairman Peter John Chaban has questioned whether the law is being applied fairly and consistently, after a 46-year-old security guard was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment and fined RM50,000 for posting remarks insulting the nation's head of state on Facebook; in comparison, a Sarawak politician was previously fined only RM5,000 for a similar offence.
This Sarawak rights activist issued a statement today, pointing out that the latest case raises significant doubts among the public regarding whether the law is being enforced consistently.
He emphasized that the issue is not whether laws regulating online speech should exist, because laws should be respected and individuals must be accountable for their actions.
"However, in a democratic society, law enforcement processes must always be founded on fairness, consistency, and transparency," he said.
He stated that the public must be assured that the same legal principles apply to everyone, and that there are no differences due to an individual’s social background, occupation, status, or influence.
"The rule of law must, while upholding the dignity of national institutions, also safeguard the dignity and rights of all citizens."
Peter John pointed out that the penalties in the two cases involving insults to the head of state are obviously vastly different.
"Many ordinary Malaysians may ask: Why is it that a politician was only fined RM5,000, but a poor security guard was fined RM50,000?"
"Is the taxpayer-funded judicial system truly upholding the interests and dignity of those in power, or is it equally protecting the rights, dignity, and justice of every citizen?" he questioned.
The case he referred to was in January 2025. At that time, former PKR leader Iswardy Morni was fined RM5,000 by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for posting remarks insulting the head of state on his personal Facebook page four years prior; if he failed to pay, he would have to serve 6 months in prison instead.
The court at that time considered that it was his first offense, thus imposing a lighter sentence.
Peter John stated that public institutions exist only because they enjoy the support of the people. Every citizen who contributes to the country through taxation has the right to expect a fair, balanced, and impartial judicial system.
He said that he respects judicial independence and due process, but public confidence in the judicial system can only be truly established when the law is applied consistently, and when people believe that judicial decisions will not vary because of personal status or influence.
"Justice must not only be done, but the public must also see that justice is done fairly." he said.
He emphasized that the issue is not whether laws regulating online speech should exist, because laws should be respected and individuals must be accountable for their actions.
"However, in a democratic society, law enforcement processes must always be founded on fairness, consistency, and transparency," he said.
He stated that the public must be assured that the same legal principles apply to everyone, and that there are no differences due to an individual’s social background, occupation, status, or influence.
"The rule of law must, while upholding the dignity of national institutions, also safeguard the dignity and rights of all citizens."
Peter John pointed out that the penalties in the two cases involving insults to the head of state are obviously vastly different.
"Many ordinary Malaysians may ask: Why is it that a politician was only fined RM5,000, but a poor security guard was fined RM50,000?"
"Is the taxpayer-funded judicial system truly upholding the interests and dignity of those in power, or is it equally protecting the rights, dignity, and justice of every citizen?" he questioned.
The case he referred to was in January 2025. At that time, former PKR leader Iswardy Morni was fined RM5,000 by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for posting remarks insulting the head of state on his personal Facebook page four years prior; if he failed to pay, he would have to serve 6 months in prison instead.
The court at that time considered that it was his first offense, thus imposing a lighter sentence.
Peter John stated that public institutions exist only because they enjoy the support of the people. Every citizen who contributes to the country through taxation has the right to expect a fair, balanced, and impartial judicial system.
He said that he respects judicial independence and due process, but public confidence in the judicial system can only be truly established when the law is applied consistently, and when people believe that judicial decisions will not vary because of personal status or influence.
"Justice must not only be done, but the public must also see that justice is done fairly." he said.