— Yow Hong Chieh
The Malaysian Insider
Jan 24, 2012
JAN 24 — Pakatan Rakyat (PR) promotes equality for all, regardless of religion or race, and stronger civil liberties as the bedrock for a more modern, progressive Malaysia.
The pact says all basic rights enshrined in the Constitution will be upheld when it takes power, rights that Barisan Nasional (BN) has denied to the people on more than one occasion.
Among the fundamental rights that PR trumpets whenever it wishes to rally its supporters is the freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of movement.
But if the opposition believes in these freedoms, why is it we still see people like Faekah Husin, political secretary to Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, proposing that the outspoken Datuk Ibrahim Ali be banned from the state for being a nuisance?
Freedom is for everyone, not just those who happen to agree with you.
Faekah, you and many others may not like what Ibrahim says, but suggesting that a state-wide embargo be put on the Perkasa chief smacks of the very same petulance PR has accused BN of many a time.
“I don’t like you so I don’t friend you” is not the kind of response I’d hoped for from a high-level representative of a coalition which champions rule of law.
Whatever happened to defending to the death someone’s right to speak even if you disagree with what they’re saying? By all means, if you think it’s slander or libel, sue. At least that’s a legal matter for the court to decide, not a half-baked idea born out of political vendetta.
We are all entitled to our opinions. And there’s a terribly good chance our views will not be shared by all or even most.
So we start to ban everyone whose speech we find distasteful because we think we have the power to do so? Let’s just say the Selangor state assembly hall will be half-empty.
Fortunately, PKR legal affairs director Latheefa Koya had the good sense to rebuke her colleague on Twitter last night: “PKR strongly believes in freedom of movmnt 4 all msians including obnoxious ppl. we dont agree w any move 2 ban anybody-unprincipled &illegal.”
But I can’t help but wonder now just how many PKR veterans will readily resort to the same unfair tactics BN has deployed to stifle dissenting views once they make it to Putrajaya, if Faekah is any measure.
///On Anwar’s claim that the sodomy charge was aimed at embarrassing him Najib was quoted by Bernama as saying “It’s not to embarrass him This concerned a complaint made by an individual under the country’s law everyone regardless of his or her position has the same right ”.///–Malaysian Insider
Najib as a PM should not tell lies. Najib implies that his government respects every police report and has taken action on every one of them if he chose to claim that the Sodomy II was to respect the complaint of every individual. Let the police tell us whether this is true that all police reports have been taken through the court.
There were more than 500 custodial deaths, and the families have certainly launched their complaints. Have we heard of any court case on custodial death?
Was Sodomy II a case between one person against another as in a civil trial? It was a case between the state and the defendant. If the government did not charge Anwar for rape, then did Saiful report that he had consensual sex with Anwar? If Saiful did say consensual sex, what is the complaint? If Saiful said he was forced into sodomy II why did not the government make that charge accordingly? The government did not agree that it was anything to do with rape. Why did not the government charge Saiful for making false police report when the AG did not consider the report truthful?
Najib should tell whether the appeal to the non-guilty verdict was done on behalf of the government or was it on behalf of Saiful. If it was for Saiful who gave the AG the right to waste government resources to appeal on his behalf. If it was for the government, what has the right of the complainant come into play with regard to a court case of criminal charge against a citizen.
Najib in making his comments shows that he is not fit to be a PM. He should have been candid to say that he had the opportunity to finish off his political opponent, and that would sound like an intelligent statement.
That is right. We do not banish people from certain place but influence them until they no longer err from the path of rectitude.
http://media1-cdn.malaysiakini.com/434/59c1c4282497f2b00791add63b05a623.jpg
Oh my gosh! She wants me to buy her another RM24 million diamond ring!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uD0ODn1a1Cg/TxEyjNy_YyI/AAAAAAAACQc/Oj47rtrgeoI/s1600/shahrizat.jpg
Ban me lah. I will take the RM250 million and go to Kerala and live like a queen
///But if the opposition believes in these freedoms, why is it we still see people like Faekah Husin, political secretary to Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, proposing that the outspoken Datuk Ibrahim Ali be banned from the state for being a nuisance?///
Really, ibrahim bin perkasa is a true nuisance full stop.
He has the support of some ” leaders ” to be a nuisance to cause unnecessary division, confusion and distrust.
It’s all part of their ” games ” and, knowing they could get away easily, they don’t care of its irresponsible, dangerous and damaging consequences!
Though we all think like Voltaire [?] but refuse to accept the reality of the scenario. Yes, there are still plenty of simple people who just believe in rumours even that of the impossible kind! Just like the Hassan guy who thought the talking Bible is designed only for one purpose: to prove him right ! Such people abound everywhere so at times, it is easily to stop such jokers from creating even more confusion by stopping them. Yes, I know there are plenty of people out there who believe in the 100% freedom of speech just like in the West but be assured their level of thinking has undergone a long period of cleansing before they can achieve this stage. I am not against free speeches but we may have to do it at a steady manner!