Comments on: Hindraf demo - BN Ministers and leaders should have at least 30% of Toh Kin Woon’s sincerity and honesty http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2007/11/29/hindraf-demo-bn-ministers-and-leaders-should-have-at-least-30-of-toh-kin-woons-sincerity-and-honesty/ for Malaysia Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:26:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: EARNEST http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2007/11/29/hindraf-demo-bn-ministers-and-leaders-should-have-at-least-30-of-toh-kin-woons-sincerity-and-honesty/#comment-60130 EARNEST Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:12:56 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2007/11/29/hindraf-demo-bn-ministers-and-leaders-should-have-at-least-30-of-toh-kin-woons-sincerity-and-honesty/#comment-60130 The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. The application of Algebra may even obfuscate the truth. Article 10(1)(b) and 10(2) does not mention anything about Police permit. 10(2)(b) mentions something about restrictions, which I interpret to be in good faith, which is the reason for its existence. Besides my personal convictions on the spirits rather than the letters and good intentions of constitutional laws, what also matters is the perception of law enforcement, on whether rally without police permit=illegal. Does it ever occur to you to ask if it is illegal to deny police permit without justification because it infringes on our constitutional rights? If rally without police permit=illegal, then consequences="Yes" If consequences="No"? then what? You don't care whether it is legal or not, because it is just a futile academic exercise to debate on it. A proven illegal act must have consequences, else it can not be illegal. There is no doubt that shoplifting, murder and rape if proven can not escape consequences provided by the penal codes and CPC. We can not challenge their legality. Ask yourself, why are the leaders and those 2000 people who participated in the Walk of Justice by the Malaysian Bar not arrested if rally without police permit is illegal? Their conviction that what they did was right was so strong that they were not bothered whether it was legal or not. They told the police, if they wanted to arrest them, go ahead. But, why are those arrested in the Bersih demonstrations not charged with illegal assembly, but some silly charges of endangering the lives of Children under the Child Protection Act? Why are the leaders, such as YB Lim, Anwar Ibrahim and Hadi not arrested and face consequences for taking part in illegal assembly? Their faces were shown on TV. If an illegal action is committed, and there is no consequence for it, is it illegal then? The answer is not important anymore. If so, there must be uniformity. If the Powers-that-be have their fingers on the pulse of society and are smart, Section 27 of the police Act, which came into being out of the exigencies of May 13 would be scrapped off immediately to remove any doubt whether a rally without police permit is illegal. It is a matter of time before that happens. Precedence had already been set where there were no consequences for "illegal" peaceful assembly. The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. The application of Algebra may even obfuscate the truth.

Article 10(1)(b) and 10(2) does not mention anything about Police permit. 10(2)(b) mentions something about restrictions, which I interpret to be in good faith, which is the reason for its existence.

Besides my personal convictions on the spirits rather than the letters and good intentions of constitutional laws, what also matters is the perception of law enforcement, on whether rally without police permit=illegal.

Does it ever occur to you to ask if it is illegal to deny police permit without justification because it infringes on our constitutional rights?

If rally without police permit=illegal, then consequences=”Yes”

If consequences=”No”? then what? You don’t care whether it is legal or not, because it is just a futile academic exercise to debate on it.

A proven illegal act must have consequences, else it can not be illegal. There is no doubt that shoplifting, murder and rape if proven can not escape consequences provided by the penal codes and CPC. We can not challenge their legality.

Ask yourself, why are the leaders and those 2000 people who participated in the Walk of Justice by the Malaysian Bar not arrested if rally without police permit is illegal? Their conviction that what they did was right was so strong that they were not bothered whether it was legal or not. They told the police, if they wanted to arrest them, go ahead.

But, why are those arrested in the Bersih demonstrations not charged with illegal assembly, but some silly charges of endangering the lives of Children under the Child Protection Act? Why are the leaders, such as YB Lim, Anwar Ibrahim and Hadi not arrested and face consequences for taking part in illegal assembly? Their faces were shown on TV.

If an illegal action is committed, and there is no consequence for it, is it illegal then? The answer is not important anymore.

If so, there must be uniformity.

If the Powers-that-be have their fingers on the pulse of society and are smart, Section 27 of the police Act, which came into being out of the exigencies of May 13 would be scrapped off immediately to remove any doubt whether a rally without police permit is illegal.

It is a matter of time before that happens. Precedence had already been set where there were no consequences for “illegal” peaceful assembly.

]]> By: Jeffrey http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2007/11/29/hindraf-demo-bn-ministers-and-leaders-should-have-at-least-30-of-toh-kin-woons-sincerity-and-honesty/#comment-59862 Jeffrey Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:44:10 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2007/11/29/hindraf-demo-bn-ministers-and-leaders-should-have-at-least-30-of-toh-kin-woons-sincerity-and-honesty/#comment-59862 My thinking and conclusion is guided by what objectively is the case, legal or not legal which has nothing to do with what it, the law, or the moral situation ought to be, no matter how much I would have personally wished for it. The conclusion also has nothing to do with whether "it is very safe to hold this view, with the protection of Powers-that-be". It has everything to do with when one looks at article 10(1)(b) read in conjunction with artivcle 10(2), what the plain words of these articles tell us is the case in their ordinary and grammatical meaning. My thinking and conclusion is guided by what objectively is the case, legal or not legal which has nothing to do with what it, the law, or the moral situation ought to be, no matter how much I would have personally wished for it.

The conclusion also has nothing to do with whether “it is very safe to hold this view, with the protection of Powers-that-be”.

It has everything to do with when one looks at article 10(1)(b) read in conjunction with artivcle 10(2), what the plain words of these articles tell us is the case in their ordinary and grammatical meaning.

]]>