Last week, social media was inundated with news of how three local influencers triggered a wave of backlash and outcry with a clip of them pranking a homeless man by gifting him a meal full of chicken bones.
Amidst the backlash however, an individual has stepped forth to defend one of the influencers and said that the matter was blown out of proportion.
M’sian defends chicken bones prank influencer
In a close to 1-minute video which was recorded and shared with China Press, a young man named Kaijie, who’s a friend of one of the influencers named Aluk, said Aluk was far from the heartless person many perceived him to be from the infamous clip.
“I got to know Aluk a year ago through filming TikTok videos. He’s a person who is always willing to share (his knowledge) and help others, especially those who want to learn video editing and filming.”
As for the chicken bones controversy, Kaijie revealed that Aluk’s English and Malay proficiency were poor, which may have lead to miscommunication between him and the homeless man.
“Aluk always asks for the other party’s consent before filming and most of his videos involve him poking fun at himself. As for the chicken bones prank, the other two individuals filming with him said they wanted to create this kind of content.
The only mistake I felt Aluk made was that he failed to stop them from filming a topic that could spark controversy. It’s always best to have things in black and white and get a signature before filming content.”
Kaijie also hit out at those calling for Aluk’s head over the controversy, saying that it was no different from bullying.
“This is really absurd as the homeless man had admitted he received RM100 from Aluk to buy food and drinks for himself. I hope the truth will come to light.”
Summary of events
After the clip made rounds on social media, Aluk and two others were summoned by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) for questioning.
Although they’re currently out on bail, they face a fine of RM500,000, imprisonment of up to two years, or both if convicted under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 [Act 588].
One of the influencers’ mother also claimed her son was “treated like a criminal” by being handcuffed and made to wear prison garb.
Read about it here:
