While all right-thinking Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, agree that stern action should be taken against those responsible for the blog which insults Prophet Mohammad, many are asking why the authorities have been so tardy and laid-back in acting when complaint was first made many weeks ago.
Although Utusan Malaysia first reported about the blog last Saturday, 27th December 2008, with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, responding on the same day by directing the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and the police to act quickly against the blog over insults to Prophet Muhammad, in actual fact, the authorities had been aware of the blog concerned for weeks.
This was revealed by the Information Minister, Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek who said on Saturday that the woman in her 20s whose photograph and identify were used in the blog containing insults to Prophet Mohammed had denied owning the Internet domain and had in fact met him two weeks ago to ask RTM to help clear her name.
Shabery said:
“She sought help from RTM to publicise the matter because the web log, which also contains Deepavali messages insulting the Hindus, was not hers and had tarnished her reputation and the company she works for.”
But neither Shabery nor RTM gave her any help although she had lodged reports with the police and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to trace the people responsible after coming to know the existence of the blog several months ago.
Instead, the woman was picked up by the police at 6 pm on Saturday to “assist in the investigation” and later released on police bail!
The police said today that they have identified several suspects in connection with the offensive blog and several people would soon be called up to assist in the investigations under the Sedition Act.
The question Hamid Albar, Shabery and MCMC should answer is why the police, the RTM and MCMC had been so tardy and laid-back in taking action against the blog concerned when the woman victim had lodged reports with the police, the Information Minister and the MCMC weeks before the Utusan Malaysia report last Saturday and why she had to be taken into custody to “assist in investigations” despite her earlier complaints!
#1 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:28 am
Professor Lee Wang Yen,
If I am allowed an opportunity to meet you in the coffee shop, perhaps I will have the pleasure to invite you for coffee shop conversation on theology.
I feel that theology will be a more interesting topic for us to talk about than the logics.
By the way, do you believe in God?
#2 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:30 am
Did I say or imply that anyone was logically wrong in using inductive approach in this issue?
How could I have said or implied this, since I’ve reiterated that I’ve been using inductive reasoning and that inductive reasoning is what we have to rely on in science and ordinary life?
Please reread my comment on the irrelevance of one of your comments.
#3 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:32 am
Yes, I do believe in God. But that is irrelevant to what we discuss here.
I will no longer respond to points about my personal life since they are irrelevant.
#4 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:49 am
AhPek says:
‘…Like I said you can just make it simple but no you have to take 3 comments to make your point…’
Does expressing my points in three separate posts violate the principle of simplicity?
I responded to three different points raised in your comment in three separate and very short posts to make it more manageable, since I have been advised to simplify a complex argument. One way to simplify a complex argument is to break it into smaller components and to deal with each component in a separate post.
I have consistently shown that I’m only interested in discussing particular issues by focusing on comments on those issues, my arguments for my views, the responses of others to my views and methodology, the defence of my views, and of my methodology, etc. I have not raised the issue of ego. Perhaps one think that defending one’s view to the hilt is equivalent to ‘the need of showing ego’. But I don’t think so. For me it is the need to know the truth that drives me.
#5 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:50 am
oops… ‘…one THINKS that…’
#6 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:53 am
See there you go again,brushing away this fellow’s point as irrelevant,that fellow also and so on,placing yourself on a high pedestal and pissing quite a few off.Look Lee Wang Yen,you may be a wiz kid but you haven’t got a shred of wisdom in you.
#7 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:56 am
Sadly, instead of focusing on a commentator’s arguments and methodology, some commentators here choose to focus on the commentator.
Even if I’m smug and egoistic, it is irrelevant to the discussion here.
#8 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:58 am
undergrad2 Says:
December 31st, 2008 at 22: 19.26
“Onlooker,
The police must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Why is that important? Here’s why. If they have no reasonable cause, then any evidence they find on you will not be admissible in court. It is called ‘fishing expedition’ which is illegal.”
Undergrad2,
Perhaps you have forgotten that the Police can always make use of the draconian ISA to invoke a preventive detention. Noone will have any chance to challenge the Police in court for ‘fishing expedition’ and to prove that the Police arrest has been done in an illegal manner.
Common sense tells us that it is much better for us not to take the Police to court even if there is a wrongful arrest that is deemed to have been done on us by the Police. The core question is whether the possible liquidated damages and additional penalty damages permitted by court will justify the expensive cost of hiring a lawyer in a civil lawsuit against the Police! Therefore, in Malaysia so far we can hardly see a civil case which has been commenced in a Malaysia legal court in relation to someone’s accusing the Police for wrongful arrest, even though wrongful arrest by the Police has been a very common complaint made by many victims of the Police misuse of power in Malaysia.
#9 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:59 am
No, I don’t brush away points. One who brushes away points simply dismisses it and does not care about giving a reason or an argument for why a particular point is irrelevant, a particular argument is problematic, inconsistent etc. But I have given reasons and arguments whenever I disagree with someone’s views. In fact, I have also given reasons and arguments most of the time when I express agreement with someone’s views.
#10 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:21 am
It’s precisely because you are smug and egoistic that some commenters choose to focus on you.Don’t you see that at all? Oh sorry stupid of me it’s irrelevant to you!!
#11 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:21 am
Professor Lee Wang Yen,
I sincerely believe that whether a person does believe in God or not makes a big difference.
I would rather trust that a God-fearing person would have never used the formal logical argument in order to defeat his/her counterpart in the logical discussion. A God-fearing and academically-honest person will usually rely upon the common sense instead of convoluted logic in order to make a clarification on his/her premise/assumption or qualified statement.
#12 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:23 am
Would you please justify your claim that I’m smug and egoistic?
#13 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:26 am
And if you have any humility at all you could have taken some of the pointers given by OrangRojak Dec 31st 2008 23:20:30
#14 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:30 am
I’ve not used formalism. I’ve merely used some Roman letters to represent some propositions to avoid repetition and the use of pronouns and referring expressions.
That’s not formalism. That doesn’t even qualify as semi-formalism. To be formalistic I’ll at least have to use Boolean algebra. But I’ve not used symbols for Boolean operators in my posts.
In any case, God-fearing analytic philosophers have used formal arguments to argue against views of other philosophers. I can cite at least three big names.
#15 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:36 am
You haven’t given any reason to show that I’m smug and egoistic. That comment of OrangRojak does not contain any clue to support this claim. What it claims is that I’ve been using formalism. But this is a false claim, as I argue in an earlier post in response to Onlooker Politics, my mere use of Roman letters to represent some propositions in order to avoid repetition and the use of pronouns and referring expressing does not even qualify as semi-formalism.
#16 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:36 am
And I don’t have to justify my assertion that you are smug and egoistic.Like I’ve said quite a few in YB’s blog have sensed that and that’s good enough for them to come to that conclusion.
#17 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:43 am
Then I’m sorry I can’t take that assertion seriously.
#18 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:56 am
Whatever it is, one shouldn’t simply conclude that ‘a person is smug and egoistic if that person defends some of his views to the hilt or if that person manages to show the weakness of his opponent’s arguments’ (let’s call the sentence within the quotation marks P).
Disclaimer: This is only meant to be a general point. I’m not suggesting that P is AhPek’s reason for asserting that I’m smug and egoistic. Since he does not justify his assertion and says that it arises from a kind of feeling, which he allegedly shares with ‘quite a few’ commentators here, I do not claim that P describes his reason for making that assertion.
#19 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:58 am
You definitely don’t have to of course and it also isn’t my intention to ask you to take it seriously for how dare I ask a person of such stature to come down some of the time from the pedestal he has placed himself all of the time.Professor Lee Wang Yen a mere mortal like me just don’t have the audacity to do that!!!
#20 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:02 am
How is that point about my smugness and egoism relevant to whether the police have reasonable grounds to treat that woman as a formal suspect?
#21 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:07 am
“The core question is whether the possible liquidated damages and additional penalty damages permitted by court will justify the expensive cost of hiring a lawyer in a civil lawsuit against the Police!” Onlooker
Limkamput is prepared to work pro bono.
#22 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:30 am
Professor Lee Wang Yen,the wiz kid from Cambridge,I am no wiser from your bloviating (thanks undergrad for introducing that word) and you are no wiser from my telling you that you are smug and egoistic.I am happy to give my opinion and you are happy bloviating.So what else is new!
#23 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:35 am
What do you mean be bloviating? A sense of ‘bloviate’ is ‘speaking in a boastful way’. Are you saying that I’m speaking in a boastful way?
Which of my comments is boastful? Have I said anything like I think I’m very good or smart or etc?
Now, if you claim that someone is boastful just because he defends some of his views to the hilt and show the weaknesses of his opponent’s views and arguments, I must say that this is a very unjustified claim.
#24 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:39 am
No, as I’ve shown consistently in my posts, I’m not happy to just make assertions or give opinions without providing reasons or arguments. I’ve been giving reasons for my claims. But you have not given reasons for your claim that I’m smug and egoistic. That’s the difference.
#25 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:41 am
oops… ‘..and SHOWS the..’
#26 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:48 am
oops… ‘ … mean BY bloviating…’
#27 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:55 am
Professor Lee Wang Yen,the wiz kid from Cambridge, you are happy bloviating and I am happy telling you are smug and egoistic.So what else is new!
#28 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 3:26 am
Professor Lee Wang Yen,
It seems that the formal argument is going to end up with some name-calling with convoluted logic. Why don’t we just try to use the logic reduction to close off the debate?
Boolean transformations work by accumulating and rearranging structures. Contrary to Boolean transformations, boundary transformations work by deleting structures. Deletion has excellent computational properties: the problem gets smaller for each rule application, thus processing gets faster while problem size decreases.
Common sense example: You are in a room. You walk out the door and then back in the door. You can delete, or not perform, the two passages through the door because you end up in the same place.
If the question you initially raised in this blog was whether the police had reasonable grounds to treat that woman as a formal suspect, then by using the boundary logic we are pretty sure now that nothing much has been accomplished thus far because noone has ever been able to provide a true/correct conclusion on whether the police had reasonable grounds to treat that woman as a formal suspect. Common sense would require us to get the woman to come forward to us and testify on whether she had really been treated by the Police as a formal suspect. Therefore the debate proceeding should be pending until the woman has appeared to us as a crucial eyewitness.
#29 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 3:59 am
If you don’t understand what ‘bloviating’ means, maybe you understand ‘blow’ and ‘wait’??
#30 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 7:30 am
Lee Wang Yen asked whether I thought AhPek’s comment posted at 16: 59.46 today was fair.
On first reading (without accessing the Islamic website – sorry that’s my fault in commenting without first bothering to access), I thought it was fair.
On second reading (after taking a peep at that website), it has not changed my view that he meant well than ill.
I take his 1st para as to urge us, reading your arguments, to dig up our old books on “ probability theory or logic and syllogistic arguments” as well meaning.
Whatever field people have been trained in – whether sociology, psychology, economics, law, business management or even medicine – my personal bias is that philosophy, especially the field of logics, syllogistic arguments, fallacies of arguments etc – is the first, and the important knowledge/foundation to sharpen thinking skills to acquire and sift through information for the determination of fact.
AhPek says “we mustn’t denigrate Lee Wang Yen’s contribution to YB’s blog” and I agree that your reminder (by the way of your method of arguments) of these fundamentals (so often neglected, amid what OrangRojak correctly said about “sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, crap analogies, passion and bigotry are the lingua franca of this blog” – is timely, helpful and well intentioned. I don’t view it as smugness or display of ego at all.
#31 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 7:41 am
It is trite a recommendation to get to a site of interest does not necessarily involve a corollary recommendation by the “recommender” that the site’s contents are good in the sense true.
When AhPek said “the web site is “good information” or “good stuff”on Islamic fundamentalist, how they aim to make the world islamic eventually by any means even by way of taqiyya” – I take it as an expression of Ah Pek’s own views, presumably after his visit to it and after he had learnt about ‘taqiyya’ sometime back) (whether or not it is really true that perception of his). This is so especially in light of your express caveat.
Being so persuaded that the postinmgs are “good information” AH Pek himself recommended that “it will do us good to get there to read some of the postings” (esp when some of us might be nonchalant about implications of political fundamentalist thinking and complacent about PAS’s challenges).
The tenor of the whole posting that must be read.
On his last part: “We may not entirely agree with him” is certainly an attempt at balance – to say that disagreement in approach and way of tackling the problem of religious extremism that the rest may have with you, should not detract from the issue of which is greater evil, PAS or UMNO…
He has put his finger on the crux of the issue the subject of vehement debate with Godfather in the earlier blog thread.
He does not sound like someone trying to deliberately implicate you as endorsing a website or its contents which may rightly in some cases be construed as insulting Islam or plain paranoiac etc. That’s my impression.
#32 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 7:58 am
I agree that AhPek’s statement that “Lee has certainly given us very good information on Islamic fundamentalist” by introducing the website may be misconstrued by some as implying that you recommend it as “good information”.
However we are all making postings in a blog where we don’t carefully compose our writings and thoughts that carefully (as some of us think it should be the case whilst rest of us respond to spontaneity) (or else it will have be something like this: “Lee has introduced us a web site which is interesting, which I personally found good information on Islamic fundamentalist but that part about it being good must be made clear is not his opinion as contained in his caveat”.
I look at the whole tenor and context of his posting rather than seize a single line, not that precisely expressed, in an informal blog posting and impute from that alone he has a less than meritorious motive. Judging as a whole, I would readily give him the benefit of any doubt for the reasons I have outlined in my preceding postings.
#33 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 8:11 am
One may also ask, how do I know that when Ah Pek said “the web site is “good information” or “good stuff”on Islamic fundamentalist, how they aim to make the world islamic eventually by any means even by way of taqiyya” he was actually expressing his own views rather than implying tongue in cheek that it was Lee Wang Yen’s views, notwithstanding Lee’s caveat?
I form the view from the drift, leanings, and tenor of his postings in other blog thread in the past on issues relating to PAS.
#34 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 8:17 am
Thanks, Jeffrey, for taking the time to explain this!
I may have misunderstood AhPek’s comment as sacrcasm. If so, I would be happy to apologise.
#35 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 8:18 am
oops… ‘… comment as sacarsm.’
#36 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 8:31 am
We’re not asking the subjective question of whether someone feels that she has been treated as a formal suspect. So the interesting boundary logic is irrelevant here.
We’re talking about whether the police are morally justified to treat, from a legal perspective, someone as a formal suspect without reasonable grounds.
This is an objective question that involves reasoning about the ethics of treating someone, from a legal perspective, as a formal suspect. One of the key issues is whether certain police action constitutes treating her as a formal suspect from the perspective of Malaysian law. This is an objective question we can discuss. Whether she feels she has been thus treated is irrelevant.
#37 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 8:51 am
Lee,
Your attempt to inject a philosophical twist to the discussion relating to an issue which is one of law is hilarious!
#38 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 8:51 am
Moderator/Kit: Could you please do me the favour of deleting my earlier two postings at 07: 28.09 (1 hour ago) and 08: 26.53 (15 minutes ago), as they are no longer necessary or relevant. Thank you.
#39 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 8:59 am
The issue involves both legal and ethical aspects.
If we are only talking about whether the police action constitutes treating the woman as a formal suspect according to Malaysian law, it is purely a legal issue.
If we are talking about whether the police action constitutes treating the woman as a formal suspect, and if it does, whether it is morally right to treat her as a formal suspect under those circumstances, this is both a legal and ethical (and thus philosophical) issue.
#40 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 8:59 am
oops… ‘… comment as SARCASM…’
sorry for the double corrections!
#41 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:07 am
“One of the key issues is whether certain police action constitutes treating her as a formal suspect from the perspective of Malaysian law. This is an objective question ….” Lee
Your opinion on the issue is irrelevant. What is relevant is the law.
What does the law say about arrest, bail etc. Does the law require that your rights be read to you once an arrest takes place? What constitutes an arrest? How long can the police detain you without charging you? Can the police extend your detention without charging you? Do you have a right to counsel? If you cannot afford counsel will one be made available to you at state’s expense?
In all these issues your opinion is not relevant.
In some jurisdictions, the police is understandably slow in arresting or even declaring a person to be a person of interest or worse a suspect, because once they do, then the person arrested need not answer any question asked of him by the police. If he requests counsel then one must be provided to him.
#42 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:22 am
For the police to arrest you, they must have probable cause or reasonable ground that a crime has been committed. If they do not have probable cause then the arrest and detention is unlawful. There is nothing that a writ of habeas corpus cannot solve.
Mere suspicion would not do. Even at this early stage the police would need to show some evidence to the magistrate. If they lack the evidence they will need to convince the magistrate that they believe they can get the evidence within the next several days. What the police can and cannot do is spelt out in the Criminal Procedure Code.
#43 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:24 am
Since we have been giving our opinions on ‘whether a certain action constitutes treating someone as a formal suspect from the perspective of Malaysian law’ (let’s call the clause within the quotation marks P), those opinions are relevant.
Of course, some opinions on P are more accurate (in the sense of being closer to reflecting whether that action constitutes treating someone as a formal suspect according to Malaysian law) and some are less accurate. But whether accurate or not, all these opinions on P are relevant.
You should have said that my opinion, and by extension, the opinions of other non-experts in Malaysian law who commented on this aspect of the issue, may be questionable or unreliable given that I’m (and by extension, we’re [those non-experts and I]) not an expert in Malaysian law.
#44 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:33 am
You don’t have to be an expert on Malaysian law. If you are then your opinion is relevant and admissible in a court of law.
You need to know the law. You don’t need to be an expert on the law. If you don’t know the law then you don’t know what you’re talking about.
#45 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:33 am
See what I mean undergrad,he never misses any opportunity to display his prowess at sizing everything globally.Bloviating? Of course he will use his inductive reasoning,syllogistic arguments or maybe Boolean algebra that you are wrong.In simple language which only ordinary mortals like us know he has become a pain in the a_ _ to quite a few people in this blog,and I don’t mind telling him so straight in the face!
#46 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:45 am
You seem to have conflated ‘relevant to our discussion here’ with ‘relevant to or admissable in a court of law’.
Whether my opinion and those of all the non-experts on Malaysian law here are admissable in a court of law will of course have bearing on the question of whether these opinions are reliable. If they there are admissable in a court of law, we have good reason to think that they are reliable. If they are not admissable because we are not lawyers, then we must find out from experts whether these opinions are reliable.
However, whether these opinions are reliable or not, they are relevant to our discussion here, though they are not relevant to or admissable in a law of court.
#47 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:46 am
AhPek,
Some straight talking is in order.
#48 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:49 am
“Whether my opinion and those of all the non-experts on Malaysian law here are admissable in a court of law will of course have bearing on the question of whether these opinions are reliable” Lee
Relevancy and reliability are two different things entirely. Heresay evidence is irrelevant and hence inadmissible. But in many cases they are very reliable.
#49 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:51 am
Lee,
You’re once again bloviating!
#50 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:55 am
Like I said earlier, your attempt to inject a philosophical twist to the discussion relating to an issue which is one of law is hilarious.