“Any offence in the latter category would fall under “contempt of court” to be dealt with by the presiding judge for the Altantunya murder case. When and why did it become an offence under the Sedition Act?”

Because the man who made comments sub judice would still be left standing and free to do more of the same? That hauling him in by the presiding judge to face contempt charges would put him away perhaps for six months when they need to put him away for two years?

“Last Tuesday, officers from the Johore State Religious Department and the police gatecrashed into the Johore Baru Moral Uplifting Society, without warrant, to forcibly remove a script picture depicting the Islamic faith as the Society was set up in reverence and respect for five religions, the others being Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and Confucianism.” Kit

First, what is so objectionable about the “Islamic script picture” – whatever that may be? Secondly, are they saying that “moral uplifting” is the exclusive role of the moral police set up by the religious department? What about the weight lifting that accompanies aerobic classes that end with the Lord’s prayer? Is it not moral uplifting with weights?

“Thank you for your improved comments on rpk. your initial posting on rpk calling him careless and surrounded by lawyers ill advising him was not quite fair a remark,unless you know who is raja petra ” ADAM YONG

Respectfully, Adam, there is no difference between my initial posting and my later posting on the subject. Don’t fall for the antics of a reader whose desire to distort comments made so he could contribute to a thread and write on a subject that he knows nothing about is too obvious to go unnoticed. To him, I say there is no shame in not knowing. The shame is in knowing and then misapplying what you know for a purpose unintended by the blogger.

I still feel that RPK courageous as he is, showing courage beyond what lesser mortals like us could hope to show, should have given greater thought to his family. I’m not deriding him for his stand on principles. I used the term ‘reckless disregard’ for the law when describing concern for his personal safety and the welfare of that of his family. He is after all a loving husband to his wife and a loving father to his children. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully and timed my remarks better.

I did clarify and qualify my comments about the lawyers though – and I’m not referring to the Dream Team which now works pro bono to free him from charges of sedition. I was referring to the possibility of some of his lawyer friends who could be telling him what he wanted to hear and not what he should hear – not just about the sub judice rule. He seems aware of its meaning because he did say in his article that his comments were not sub judice before proceeding to make them. But, as you and I know, declaring comments made are not sub judice does not make them so or not so. There is the Sedition Act 1948 and the judge who interprets the law as it is drafted – and who unfortunately also decides if in fact there has been an offence under Sec. 4 of the Act.

As a lawyer when I read that article, to me there seems to be enough material in there to support a prima facie charge of sedition. – but only a prima facie charge. You should seek also the opinion of a reader like Procol who is reading for his CLP.

The reader I referred to earlier who relishes in distorting comments made gave me more credit than is due (though he didn’t realize it) when he said I gave ideas to the government with my comments. Let’s not look down on prosecutors from the AG’s Chambers who may be reading this blog! They know their stuff but they also know that they don’t decide if in fact there has been an offence under the Act. The court does. Lawyers don’t.

Our Sedition Act 1948, in my humble opinion, is so broadly drafted that to stand any decent chance of ever winning a case on sedition would be to have a trial by jurors – and not by a judge. I believe the government has never lost a sedition case.

Handsome,

So I noticed. Perhaps you’re that tall dark and handsome guy she’s looking for! Sorry about the ‘dark’. On this side of the globe, thirteen flying hours away, handsome is always associated with the rich. Only the rich can afford the tan!

“There are matters of the heart and there are matters of the brain”. cto

And how you do in life can be measured by the degree of control you allow one to have over the other. It is one of finding the correct balance.

Rather than be drawn into a discourse on logic and philosophy, suffice it for me to say that some of us score high on emotional intelligence (EQ). But the question I ask is “Should it be at the expense of our IQ” and “Must the two be in inverse relationship to each other”?

“May 8, 2008 Breaking news Malaysia Today news portal webmaster Raja Petra Kamarudin has agreed to post bail after meeting his wife Marina Lee Abdullah at the Sungai Buloh prison this morning.”

Just the other day, Hillary Clinton was asked what she’d do if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack against Israel? Her answer: “As president of the United States, I’d obliterate Iran (meaning as president of the most powerful country on earth, she’d reduce Iran a country of some 70 million people, men, women and children to nuclear waste land for the acts of their leaders). On the other hand, the other presidential candidate Barack Obama replied he “would use force”.

Reason must triumph over passion.

RPK should take advantage of the justice system that he so scorns which allows him bail so he could walk out a free man to await his trial. Aren’t we all innocent until proven guilty?

“No, not necessarily. The two need not be in inverse relationship and neither are they mutually exclusive.”

Agreed. My questions were rhetorical questions.