That’s why the poster says “…or any of your favourite Warungs!”.
No big deal, it doesn’t have to be OTC. This is only a subtle ‘protest’ and YOUR Fascist regime has alreasy jump up and down. Imagine what would happen if we starting adding milk or coffee-mate into our kopi-o! or start wearing other colors!
When MUSA HASSAN asked INTERPOL to help arrest RPK, they asked if RPK the fugitive was a serial-killer, international terrorist or a notorious drug-lord?
“He, err… he owns a blog…” – MUSA HASSAN
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see all the left blogosphere, all the Dem incumbents, and all others with a left-leaning (not me; I’m a “too much power” leaner) bent using fear to their advantage?
Suggested sound-bite: “We disagree with just about everything this Administration has done. But we respect the opinions of our political opponents. Vote ANWAR. that the BARISAN be held accountable for whatever happens until our next election.”
I say it’s a huge winner.
THAT will NOT scare folks. And make no mistake about it, WONT WORK WITH WE MALAYSIANS
Many Umno division leaders, some who are Members of Parliament, Senators, and/or Deputy Ministers/Ministers, do not appear to understand the law or the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. So that they do not continue to make fools of themselves, maybe I can enlighten them on how it works.
No, I am not a lawyer, in particular not a constitutional lawyer. It is just that I have a brain and I am not scared of using it. I always say: you need a brain to be a lawyer, but you do not need to be a lawyer to have a brain.
So here goes.
Issue number 1
Under Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is a criminal offence to withhold information if you have knowledge/information that a crime has been committed. If you withhold any information you can be arrested and charged under Section 202 of the Penal Code, which carries a sentence of six months jail upon conviction.
Now, I was reliably informed that Lt. Kol. Azmi, the number two in the Special Branch of the Military Intelligence, is aware that a certain crime had been committed. Under normal circumstances I would be required to lodge a police report. However, since I did not have first-hand information of this matter (not a witness to the crime) and therefore since this is merely hearsay (second-hand information) at best, it was decided that I make a Statutory Declaration instead (I sought legal advice on this).
I then signed a Statutory Declaration that laid out what I had been told. I added in that Statutory Declaration that I urge the authorities to investigate this matter to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of this allegation by Lt. Kol. Azmi.
By law, I am required to reveal what I had been told. And since this is a very senior man in the Military Intelligence, then what I was informed may be true. Nevertheless, it is up to the authorities to take up the matter and determine the truthfulness (or otherwise) of Lt. Kol. Azmi’s allegation.
Instead of doing that, they decided to charge me for criminal defamation. They were not interested in Lt. Kol. Azmi -- the source of the information -- even after I had revealed his name during my Internal Security Act detention.
In fact, the Special Branch officer in charge of my interrogation, Datuk Zambri Ahmad, admitted that he personally knows Lt. Kol. Azmi. But still he did not talk to Lt. Kol. Azmi. He just commented that maybe I was fed false information with an aim to fix me up. Datuk Zambri came to his conclusion without investigating the matter further to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegation.
Now, on the charge itself, I can’t be charged for criminal defamation unless my so-called crime was against a government official. And the wife of a politician is not a government official. Even if the person is a government official, but someone what the law would declare as ‘on a frolic of his/her own’, the criminal defamation charge would also not apply.
Therefore, the charge was defective and this was pointed out to the court. But the Prosecution refused to withdraw or amend the charge. The fact that under this charge even if I told the truth I would still be guilty and would be sent to jail adds another element to it: mala fide. And this too was pointed out to the court.
And that was why I refused to enter a plea and which the court insisted would be taken as a ‘not guilty’ plea even though I protested and shouted at the judge that this was not what I pleaded.
I was prepared to answer to a charge of signing a false Statutory Declaration if they think I had lied. But I refuse to answer to a defective charge with elements of mala fide.
That is the long and short of it.
Issue number 2
Article 4 (1). This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
This Article of the Constitution means that any laws that Parliament passes after Merdeka that violates or contradicts the Constitution are null and void. The Internal Security Act would be one such law but since it was passed as an ‘emergency law’ during the Malayan Emergency, then this makes the law valid.
The question, however, is that since the Emergency (war with the Communist Party of Malaya) and theKonfrantasi (with Indonesia) have both ended with the signing of peace treaties, should the Emergency not therefore be lifted? And if it should, then how can Malaysia retain emergency laws like the Internal Security Act?
Will the Emergency continue in Malaysia until the end of time and in that same spirit emergency laws that violate the Constitution continue to operate?
Issue number 3
Article 7 (1). No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed.
Article 7 (2). A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.
This is my main bone of contention.
I was punished with detention without trial under the Internal Security Act for what I wrote/signed in 2008. In 2001, when I was detained under the Internal Security Act (also for what I had written), they dropped the sedition and other charges against me (they even returned my computer which they confiscated when they closed the file on me). And it was explained that I no longer faced any charges because I had already been punished under the Internal Security Act for those same crimes.
In 2008, they punished me under the Internal Security Act and also brought me to trial for the same crimes.
The Constitution says I can’t be punished twice for the same crime. The government, however, is punishing me twice for the same crime.
Issue number 4
Article 8 (1). All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
I was punished because I was alleged to have made a seditious statement against the wife of the then Deputy Prime Minister. It is seditious only because she happens to be the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Constitution, however, says we are both equal before the law. I, therefore, can’t be punished just because someone happens to be the wife of someone important. But in my case this is what happened.
Issue number 5
Article 8 (3). There shall be no discrimination in favour of any person on the ground that he is a subject of the Ruler of the State.
I slotted this in merely to show that even though I am a ‘certified’ subject of the Ruler of Selangor I still could face punishment if I commit a crime. And I accept that as long as it follows the law and the Constitution and not otherwise.
Issue number 6
Article 9 (1). No citizen shall be banished or excluded from the Federation.
This means I cant be banished (meaning my citizenship is withdrawn) just because I oppose the government (like how many Umno people want the government to do).
And the tyrants looked at them and desired what they owned
And plotted and planned to take it.“Dispossess them!”
“Massacre them!”
“Use all necessary force to bring them to submission!”And the dispossessed cried for mercy.
Yet, no one heard.
“ reformasi” They yelled.And the tyrants cried “ISA THEM KUGAN THEM!”
“Starve and beseige them!”
“Use all necessary force to bring them to submission!”And to the world the tyrants raged: “Security!”
And the sycophants cried in defense of the tyrants.Then Conscience spoke and asked.
“Who will secure the starved, beseiged and dispossessed?”
Silence.
“Accountability!”Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government. That truism has practically reduced our options to only one – a change of political leadership. That is, if we are still serious about restoring the rule of law and the pursuit of excellence for the country. ”He is not immune from action under the law. Investigation can be made if he had acted beyond the scope of his official duties,” MACC’s Legal and Prosecution Division Director Datuk Abdul Razak Musa told reporters.
so is najib when when he sent theabuse of power liketext message correspondence is between yab dato’ sri mohd najib tun abdul razak, deputy prime minister of malaysia, and dato’ shafee abdullah“tentative” charge and that “all is not lo
Fear is, and has always been, the hallmark of political tactics. The people will only willingly submit to tyranny if they are made to believe that without government a fearful state of affairs might obtain. No other emotion can bypass rational argumentation, grab allegiance and push people to violence like fear.
Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
Machiavelli was writing for kings and emperors. Nowadays, of course, politicians have the loyalty of the people, and no longer need to be feared. Rather, they use fear for the further purpose of expanding their power.
The very existence of government is predicated on fear, the fear of chaos and general violence of all against all. Never mind that government itself is the greatest creator of chaos and violence; never mind that Anarchies have always been less violent than their contemporary societies; government propaganda and Big Media have been successful in implanting the belief that Anarchy equals chaos and violence by constantly making this correlation. Now we are stuck with the laughable absurdity of a society of people who fear that, if we remove the entity which causes wars, outlaws victimless crimes and takes over vast swaths of said society, we will have widespread violence and chaos.
The dishonest usurpation of the Articles of Confederation, and its thuggish replacement by the US Constitution (a document which deserves a place alongside the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as rallying points for the enemies of freedom), was based on fear of widespread chaos, using the Shay Rebellion as the case in point. Very often, fear is generated by taking one or a few isolated cases and letting people’s imagination run wild. “What if we get rebellions all around? What will we do without a strong central military to protect us?” These scenarios are always outlandish, but as long as people believe that it might just happen, they will fear it, no matter how improbable it is (see, for instance, the tactics of global warming fearmongers).
Now think of all the areas in which government takes over, intervenes or legislates, and you will find a tactic (if not all tactics) based on fear. Fear of terrorism, fear of other “countries,” fear of “immigrants” taking over, fear of losing one’s culture, fear of being attacked, fear of being sick, fear of dying, fear of accidents, fear of having to take responsibility for one’s actions, fear of losing control over other people.Fear, of course, is rarely the actual reason underlying any government policy. The actual reasons for government policies are generally more mundane: corporate favours, popularity, interventionist foreign policy, expansion of the tax base, control over prevalent ideas, and so on. But fear is the most powerful tool that they possess in order to get those policies accepted and supported by the general population.
Take the “War on Terror.” The WoT has been a tremendously powerful and efficient tool in expanding the power of government. Why? Because the fear tactics underlying it became ridiculously easy to implement after 9-11. This operation made it easy for everyone to swallow the party line that “terrorists want to kill you for your freedom.” Never mind that the 9-11 attacks came after a concerted strategy that aimed to attack US military assets in the Middle East, and that the enemy of the terrorists is the interventionist policy of the US Empire, not “our freedom.” Never mind that we are not free. Never mind that the attacks that came afterwards had absolutely nothing to do with stopping terrorism.
Most FEAR MONGERING start with government lies and deceit, and the 9-11 attacks really illustrated the power of fear. Unthinkingly, the American public bought the lies completely, because they were gripped with fear and the desire for revenge. Fear overrides discourse and thought. Fear is primal, visceral, animalistic, a similar overwhelming feeling to the one primitive man must have felt when he faced a saber-tooth tiger. A man experiencing fear either flees or fights. If he cannot fight himself, then he will cheer on those who can. Thus the terrorists’ strategy of sinking the US government in war debt predictably won out, because their terrorist attacks were so spectacular that they had the expected effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment