Malaysia Chronicle denied basic right of legal representation by MCMC

Tuesday, October 26, 2010
by Wong Choon Mei
Malaysia Chronicle

When my hand-phone alarm woke me at 5am this morning, it was with reluctance and a heavy heart that I opened my eyes. At the back of my mind the whole weekend was my 11am interview or interrogation by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission.

And true enough, it turned out not to be a pleasant experience.

Less than 10 minutes into the meeting at the MCMC headquarters in Cyberjaya, my lawyer Latheefa Koya was ‘booted out’ from the room by none other than the director of the enforcement department, who personally came to ‘collect’ her.

And in doing so, he denied me of my fundamental right to legal representation.

Now, those of you who know Latheefa will know what a brave person she is and how very vocal she can be. But perhaps sensing my nervousness, she helped to restore calm to my troubled thoughts after she had argued for many minutes with the MCMC officials.

Finally, she allowed them to speak with me alone, but of course, only after whispering a barrage of advice into my ear. Sad to say, the words promptly twitched out of my other ear!

Thus, began nearly two-and-half hours of questioning into my background, Malaysia Chronicle and the article I wrote on Thursday entitled Najib warns of ‘crushed bodies’, ‘lost lives’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ if status-quo not kept….

In particular, they focused on his comments which I had quoted from a well-known news portal.

“Even if our bodies are crushed and our lives lost, brothers and sisters, whatever happens, we must defend Putrajaya.”

“What I am saying is not surprising. In the 20th century, we have seen cases of punishment without trial in the United States, the holocaust tragedy in Europe, the slaughter of Palestinians in the Middle East and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Rwanda. Imagine, what is the outcome, if every generation of Malaysians question the social contract which were agreed upon by their forefather.”

Out of this rash of words, there were only three phrases that the MCMC was interested in – bodies crushed, lives lost and ethnic cleansing.

The two recording officers also told me I was being investigated for possible breach of Section 211 and 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. Each offense carry a maximum fine of RM50,000 and/or jail of up to one-year. (Click into the sections or scroll down do see what these provisions are about)

One of the most memorable question was, did I think I had broken the laws and why? My answer was just a brief I disagree.

In fact, neither has the news-portal which reported the comments run foul of the law. And for the simple reason that the quotes were not imagined or made up but were really part of Najib’s speech.

The quotes can even be found in Bernama’s full-text English translation of his speech, which was delivered in Malay.

Even if we are broken or divorced from the life of the body, brothers and sisters, we must defend Putrajaya at all costs. – Bernama

What I am say is not surprising. In the 20th century, we have been shown case of punishment without trial in the United States, the holocaust tragedy in Europe, the slaughter of Palestinians in West Asia and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Rwanda. So, one can imagine the result, if each generation of Malaysians take a stand to question the fairness of the national social contract that had been previously sealed by consensus by our predecessors. – Bernama

So, ‘bodies crushed’ is Even if we are broken and ‘lives lost’ is divorced from the life of the body while ‘ethnic cleansing’ is ethnic cleansing.

Why were the phrases slightly different? Because the reporter from the news portal would have translated on the spot as Najib spoke since not all the media were given the text, unlike Bernama. But even so, the translations were eerily accurate.

It is also telling that Najib has not denied making these outrageous remarks. Yet, the news-portal and Malaysia Chronicle have been picked on and are now being investigated. Why?

To me the answer is obvious – intimidation! Why?

To wear us out so that we will give up on reporting and writing anything that is critical of our 6th prime minister!

What will happen now? Probably more questioning, off-and-on harrassment and perhaps a few raids and confiscation of laptops and computer equipment.

I have to admit I do feel slightly weary. Not scared but a bit tired. Still, no way will I give up the fight yet – otherwise each day will become worse and worse of a living nightmare in Malaysia – our beautiful Malaysia.

Don’t you think so?

Meanwhile, my sincere thanks to everyone who called and SMSed good wishes. Special thanks to Latheefa.

Malaysia Chronicle appends below Section 211 and 233

Section 211. Prohibition on provision of offensive content

(1) No content applications service provider, or other person using a content applications service, shall provide content which is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day or part of a day during which the offence is continued after conviction.

Section 233. Improper use of network facilities or network service, etc.

(1) A person who —

(a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly —

(i) makes, creates or solicits; and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person; or (b) initiates a communication using any applications service, whether continuously, repeatedly or otherwise, during which communication may or may not ensue, with or without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at any number or electronic address,
commits an offence.

(2) A person who knowingly —

(a) by means of a network service or applications service provides any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person; or (b) permits a network service or applications service under the person ‘s control to be used for an activity described in paragraph (a),
commits an offence.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section shall, on conviction,be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction.

  1. #1 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 - 10:38 pm

    the tyranny of the few against ordinary citizens.
    Yes MCMC is acting to intimidate people who disagree with BN.
    If Najib made such a speech, why don’t they investigate him? After all, he is the person who started the discussion.

  2. #2 by yhsiew on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 - 10:49 pm

    It is rare to find independent institutions in Malaysia these days. Everyone of them is under UMNO’s control.

  3. #3 by tak tahan on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 - 11:02 pm

    Police-corrupted,Macc-no action,Auditor General-no case follow up,MCMC another stooge ect are malaysia kaliau boleh present state.Hopeless malay-sial case and sick to stomach.Beh tah tahan.Lam pah tua seh liap hai..ya.

  4. #4 by drngsc on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 - 11:53 pm

    Syabas Wong,
    We can all see the injustice. I wish I could help. Please stand firm for all of us.
    Their day of reckoning will come.

  5. #5 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 12:51 am

    As usual, terrorise n shoot d messenger
    Nothing done against d person who spoke d divisive n racist words

  6. #6 by House Victim on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 3:34 am

    1. Make a brief minutes on the interrogation laying out their allegations, including full content of the “quotes” they are referring.
    2. Let Latheefa send them a letter of protest of denying your rights for a lawyer, together with your minutes and ask for a copy of the interrogation recording if any. Ask for which specific offense, “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person” they are going to take on each and every quote!!
    3. Send them by registered with a Reply card.
    4. Apply for a court order that MCMC cannot interrogate you unless in the present of your lawyer…….

    Make a cc copy to their heading minister and the respective MP.

    The Malaysian system is very dark and in my opinion very ugly as experienced in Courts, especially when in Chamber, where a lot can be spoken with threats by the Judgess or promised by Judges. But, it can be changed, ommitted in the record.
    Clients, having engaged lawyer, can be asked to prepare their own documents, etc.. to face trial when their representing lawyer never go to court for more 1-2years, assaulted the clienbts, refused to done his job of amending the Defense+counterclaim as promised and engaged, etc.. Even with promises from the Judges to show cause and file application of discharge as Defendants’ lawyers, it was never done!! Finally, said it was none of their (3 she’s) business!! Judge even help the Plaintiff lawyer to trap Defendants to accept what are nonsense or unreasonable in their BOD, Issues to be tried, etc..

    Fight with your PEN!! even it could be egg onto BULL HEAD!!

    What can those Government agents done besides BULLY the innocense and ordinary!!
    Same for Bank to threaten credit card holder to pay transactions after date of report of loss with Interest, late charge and to cancel card with false allegation of default payment on those transactions which are not liable!!

  7. #7 by Loh on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 6:56 am

    Najib said, as translated by Bernama: Even if we are broken or divorced from the life of the body, brothers and sisters, we must defend Putrajaya at all costs.

    Najib wants UMNO to defend Putrajaya not against attack by foreign power, but against Pakatan Rakyat from gaining power. The only way Pakatan can gain power in Malaysia is through election. It is the BN government that is responsible for ensuring free and fair election and transfer of power to winner. How can the be bloodshed for GE13?

    Does Najib imply that UMNO was willing to create a situation where GE 13 needs not be held but BN continues to rule under Emergency rule as his father did?

  8. #8 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 7:41 am

    Our right to counsel is enshrined in Federal Constitution. However no one knows when it begins and ends!

    The world over – in varying degrees- the right to counsel is more an aspiration than reality.

    The reason is because though an individual’s access to a lawyer is a fundamental right, the society’s right to nail an offender of its law is deemed more important. At least the judges think so. They think there’s no such thing as an unabridged individual right. It has to be balanced against the competing imperative of a society to catch the offenders. That is why Justice is symbolized by a blindfolded maid holding and weighing scale of justice: its always weighing and balancing one against the other. Enforcement agencies, whether police, and now Securities Commission and Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission now tell interviewees that their lawyers shouldn’t be present. Which is natural: they would not call a suspect in for investigation unless they think he has committed an offence, and once they think so, they want to get incriminatory evidence from him to nail him, score points and move up their career. If the lawyer were present, how to get incriminatory and confessional evidence from him to eventually secure conviction? The investigators are CSI; and some prosecutors are not impressive. They say a person can “self strangulate”. Without incriminatory and confessional evidence, law enforcement will grind to a halt!

    Of course the lawyer being denied presence during interrogation can advise his client to remain silent and not self-incriminate- during…. However interrogators have their well tried ways to negate that advice. They keep on interrogating in shifts, hours and hours. The interrogation room is either warm and humid or cold. The suspect is worn out by protracted interrogation: he succumbs to the inevitable temptation to end the interrogation by providing the inculpatory statement sought by the interrogator. The case is then built up sufficient to arrest, try and convict him.

    The public attitude is also selective and ambivalent. They protest denial of right to counsel when Malaysian Chronicle’s Wong Choon Mei, Opposition officials including Teoh Beng hock or RPK were deprived off the right to Counsel. The public don’t complain if the 2 Banting lawyers accused of murder are deprived off their right to counsel. That is because the public make their own judgement that the first category are not criminals but victims of political persecutions. Though public are entitled to their own judgment, that’s not the way the criminal justice system works. Laws are laws, and if broken then whosoever from any category and whatever the motives (good or bad) make no difference.

    Our Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) gives right to counsel to a person arrested, and even this right is so qualified by exceptions that exceptions become the general rule and vice versa. What more in cases during investigation (before arrest) where’s there’s no specific legislative provisions like CPC to say one’s lawyer must be present during investigation. Even in developed countries like (say) Canada, the Supreme Court there recently decided in favour of interrogators against an appeal by Trent Terrence Sinclair who incriminated himself during interrogation before arrest. He was later arrested and convicted of culpable homicide. The judges there said that “the lawyer cannot function effectively in an informational vacuum without the possibility of even a general idea of the unfolding situation in the interrogation room. Until aware of that situation, the lawyer may be in no position to render — and the detainee may not receive — meaningful assistance” therefore the right to counsel does not crystallize until arrest (same as in US, Miranda rights kicking in after arrest but not before). Anywhere then the right to counsel is given lip service because the right to protect society is more important. In 3rd world countries it becomes right to protect Powers That Be!

  9. #9 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 7:46 am

    Typo omission in 3rd para from above : “The investigators are NOT CSI”.

  10. #10 by waterfrontcoolie on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 7:53 am

    We all must ask this question: why is Bn so afraid of truth? Have they found the real truth of the feelings of Malaysians that lies do not sell any more? hence all these actions, it would appear the current oppositions do not need to do anything stupid to win the day. Just let them shoot their feet! Without doubt, they still think that this is the begining of the 20th Century! The sad thing in life is many lesser minds with power always think that theirs are the ultimates, available in the whole wide world!

  11. #11 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 8:02 am

    The issues and questions raised by Loh in #7. One can draw the necessary inferences and conclusions even based on whats happening Saddam’s ex foreign minister Tariq Aziz in faraway Baghdad. He is no “Chemical Ali” al-Majid, Saddam’s cousin, who earned his nickname for atrocities such as the deaths of an estimated 5,000 Kurds in a poison gas attack in 1988.Aziz surrendered to U.S. forces about a month after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The moment 74 year old Aziz (the only Christian) like other former regime stalwarts were transferred by American authorities to the new Iraqi government, they were (within 3 months) all prosecuted. Tariq Aziz is now sentenced to death for persecuting Shiites. His Jordan-based lawyer, Badee Izzat Aref, accused the government of orchestrating the verdict to divert attention from recent revelations about prisoner abuse by Iraqi security forces contained in U.S. military documents released last week by the whistleblower site WikiLeaks. The Pope has inerceded to ask for clemecy and commuting of death sentence. Substitute the charge of persecuting shites to that of corruption and you can draw the inferences.

  12. #12 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 8:24 am

    I certainly cannot speak for anyone – or the ruling elites.

    But supposing I am in power. And you presently accuse me of corruption and you holding high claims to morality and ethics insist on my accountability and offer me no forgiveness or amnesty if you take over my position.

    Now – speaking strictly for myself only- I would certainly defend my position from your access at all costs even if in that process I have to (whether literally or metaphorically) break my bones and risk being divorced from the life of my body.

    Would not anyone in my shoes do the same naturally???

    There lies the rub!

  13. #13 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 8:27 am

    Being sensible on the ways of the world, I don’t want to be a possible next Tariq Aziz. I have no death wish!

  14. #14 by dagen on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 8:30 am

    Saw in the tweeter entry on the right kuli’s remark:

    “Corruption is single biggest threat to our nation.”

    And the reason? Because umno is fed on corruption.

  15. #15 by k1980 on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 9:06 am

    ‘crushed bodies’, ‘lost lives’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ if status-quo not kept….

    Yugoslavia tried that and now is split up into 7 independent countries

  16. #16 by artemisios on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 9:26 am

    Let’s be clear.

    Nobody is criticizing the PM’s speech without basis. It is with FACTS.

    So this piece from Wong is not a “critical” one. It is merely the truth. And the truth is the truth is the truth.

    Over here, those who speak the truth & seek justice & fairness will get PUNISHED

    those who spread lies, issue threats & steal gets the PRIZE

  17. #17 by dagen on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 9:34 am

    DAP MP Fong asked jib to explain his statement in parliament. Fortunately jib was not around to respond.

    But one umno idiot defended jibby’s statement. It’s only a malay saying which jib uttered during the assembly to lift the spirit of umno, he said. So what jib did was nothing more than lifting a little helpful bit out of the malay culture and applying it to umno.

    Interesting. Namewee’s famous rap “Nah” is also nothing more than an application of the present day underground music and net culture.

    Of course “Nah” is vulgar. So is jib’s utterance. Jib could well have nah all of us with a short rap and a little mooove to those vulgar words.

  18. #18 by dagen on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 9:36 am

    Yo Yo.

  19. #19 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 9:50 am

    O dear, poor Paul, RIP, we will miss U
    Paul d oracle octopus was asked 2 choose among NR, MMK n BRA – who among them d most violent racist
    It was an unenviable task n Paul decided death was easier, so sad :(

  20. #20 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 10:02 am

    Wong CM: Last words of advice 2 U fr Paul d oracle octopus
    Openly declare U r mentally n physically sound b4 U enter MCMC HQs in Cyberjaya
    U hv no desire 2 commit suicide or 2 test your flying ability
    U no carry suicide note (do leave samples of your handwriting in different languages with your lawyer)
    Do not eat, drink anything offered 2 U there, n do not rest or sleep inside d HQs
    Also, of cos very important, don’t forget 2 declare no practice of sodomy, no any tear of askhole which is in perfect shape n form

    Life is complicated n complex U know, must always b alert n protect yourself, good luck
    No larfing matter n don’t play play with your life

  21. #21 by grkumar on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 12:30 pm

    I must say I have not read the offending article the subject of your problems mentioned in this posting. I hasten to add though that many of you who claim to be journalists and lawyers (and you have a god given right to claim anything you want to be within reason) have difficulty with your use of and expression in the English language.

    A case in point:

    “One of the most memorable question was, did I think I had broken the laws and why? My answer was just a brief I disagree”.

    There is nothing in the question (let alone the grammatical error in “one of the most memorable question” (sic)) that demands or requests an agreement of you. You responded in your own words “I disagree”. Was that perhaps because you did not fully understand the question put to you by the officer that day?

    It was not as if he asked ” do you agree you have broken the law?” to which your answer “I disagree” may have been appropriate.

    It may sound like nitpicking and trivial. But where someone in your position
    reaching to a mass of discontents in a volatile situation and environment cannot be precise and accurate in what you write, you deserve to be made accountable for your actions and omissions.

    Ther eis nothing there in the select excerpts form the relevant legislation which says the officer qwuestioning you (or the authority) has to provide you with his definitions of “offensive” in the context of legislation. The constitution is likewise silent on that point. Clearly your lawyer inspite of your high praise of her was herself not informed on this point.

    Another point you have to understand is this. In reading your rights in such situations under the Constitution. Where your conduct is or is likely to threaten public order (which your comments clearly in the opinion of the authority would fall under when read in context) there is right on the part of the authority to penalise you.


    The right of a person arrested in Malaysia to consult and be defended by as legal practitioner as provided for by the constitution has been interpreted this way:

    A balance has to be struck between the right of the arrested person to consult his lawyer on the one hand and on the other the duty of the police to protect the public from wrongdoing by apprehending suspects and collecting whatever evidence that exists against them.(Ooi Ah Phua vs Officer in Charge Criminal Investigation Kedah Perlis(1975)

    It is important that all of us exercise as much restraint or act in a more balanced way when addressing issues that are sensitive.

    We cannot get away from the fact Malaysia’s politics is race based. Whether we like it or not we agreed to it and whether we agree to that statement or not we identify with it.

    Taking on UMNO is tkaing on Malaysia’s majority. Apart from dissenting voices within UMNO there has been an unsubtle attack against Malays using UMNO or the Barisan as your fig leaf for racist attacks on Malays in general (of Barisanthere is a Chinese and Indian component that is relatively free of blame and attacks by people like you).

    You may be a small fry in these events. The idea of using this Chinese oriented blog you reinforce the perception you are inciting racial hatred against a group you do not like.


  22. #22 by cto on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 1:09 pm

    grkumar on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 – 12:30 pm wrote

    snip ….

    It may sound like nitpicking and trivial

    Taking on UMNO is tkaing on Malaysia’s majority. Apart from dissenting voices within UMNO there has been an unsubtle attack against Malays using UMNO or the Barisan as your fig leaf for racist attacks on Malays in general (of Barisanthere is a Chinese and Indian component that is relatively free of blame and attacks by people like you).



    You are nitpicking and being petty.

    I am not sure what are the main points of your posting. Are you suggesting that

    1. no one in Malaysia should speak up against the blatant double standards that is widely practiced in Malaysia?
    2. no one should not take on the majority i.e UNMO?
    3. this is a chinese oriented blog and should not be used for politics cos’ Malaysian politics is race based (whether we like it or not)

    BTW, this article is about the high handedness and potential abuse of power by the MCMC. I personally do not see the author inciting or attempting to incite racial hatred. If anyone is even guilty of inciting racial hatred, it is the PM himself.

  23. #23 by dagen on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 1:25 pm

    “Ther eis nothing there in the select excerpts form the relevant legislation which says the officer qwuestioning you (or the authority) …” — grkumar.

    Errr, your pants bro. They are down!

  24. #24 by Ray on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 3:12 pm

    When Nothing whatsoever ,everything’s not working more solution so inorder to defend Putrajaya Survival …thereby Umnoists must turn to Allah, of their supernatural faith..gilah Fearing for the final unconstitutional judgement intending to turn a Nation into Religious autonomy for their Strength….too sorry for these moron uncivilised racist society…. better goto pray unceasingly for free 3 meals of daging ayam lembu daily…Tolong NEP.

    Here is a Nation wide Stern Alarming Warning from Rakyat .
    …””Those, who think they can use God’s power any other,way are fooling themselves “”..
    Malas Hypocrites.

  25. #25 by Justitia on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 4:13 pm

    I absolutely agree with cto’s (#22) and dagen’s (#23) comments on GR Kumar’s post (#21). After struggling through all the verbiage I am still not too sure what his beef is. So, much for one of his critique of other’s “use of and expression in the English language.” Look in the mirror first to see if you have any clothes on, GR!

  26. #26 by steven chan on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 5:37 pm

    The greatest joke of the day when Nazri said that the AG works independently. He is talking through his nose as even a small kid knows he is under the govt payroll.

    Its very degrading for a Minister to say that the govt cannot do anything about the PKFZ and Lingam cases.
    Well in that case we change the govt so that the new govt will definitely know what to do to them.

  27. #27 by House Victim on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 - 11:10 pm

    The Law must be interpreted as what it has stated and not it “could be” or seem to be!!

    The bringing in the conditions of “in power” to exercise a law is already a loss of Balance with “power” or “politic” much over weighed.

    The use of protecting the public in denying the Basic Human Rights had been a popular and disguesting excuse by the Communist countries. And, it has been used by the AG in making or rather dropping prosecutions in this country and the excuse behind ISA, OSA…
    Should they be the only to “decide” or “disguise” what is Public Interest?

    When a PM of a country is found continuously and repeatedly acting ONLY as a “party leader”. pointing to he-say Racial inbalance with the exercising of “race and religious base” policy and talks have already degraded himself or even disqualified himself to be in the position. The mislead of the country economical or financial situation to go into “projects” in the sky but ignoring and neglecting the Basic benefits of the general public should have been critised at large and be attended by those who has the duty to monitor the Spread of Threats which are unfounded or raised with BIAS!!

    If the manipulation of Laws or Rules or Regulations by the US in Iraq should be condemded, why should it be excused in Malaysia??

    The manipulations of Laws and Abuse of Rights in Malaysia is not just a few cases, not by a few individuals, or due to careless negligence. It has become a Political, Power and Corruption vehicle gang-up from Top to Bottom by those who have the Duties to protect but have found every excuses or care less to override!!

    In a number of Malaysian Laws, a lot of Department had been given the power of even arrest. Many can almost act like a Police and even having Court!! If the Rights of the average, especially who dare to fight or voice for the Grievance or Injustice, cannot be protected even under the Rules & Regulations, can the Authorities claim to protect the Public?? And, in many cases, they are siding those in POWER!! (with Greediness, Corruptions or Self-Interest!!)

    Hope those who are professional will stick to their professional ethic to give their professional opinion without mingled with Politics which will only confuse or mislead what a professional should be.

    Those who are politicians or would like to join in their sector, DO think of the Justice for the People by LAWS. Politicians should see themselves a Police of the Constitution and Laws for the Fairness of the People with Duties to abide and not for the grab of Power and ignoring Justice!!

    MCMC is bully to deny the Rights of Choon Mei to be interrogated in the present of her lawyer. And, MCMC should have written to her what are they suspecting her in any offenses with supporting material. SHOULD OFFENSE BE FOUND ONLY VIA INTERROGATION AND NOT FROM WHAT THEY HAD IN HAND?

  28. #28 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 5:07 am

    It is interesting that most of the responses to my posting have not addressed the issues in contention.

    Had I delivered a word perfect response to Wong Choon Mei’s complaint about her treatment in the hands of the authority, there would have been no grounds to rebut the proposition in my posting. And there is none of any substance.

    As to the other matters raised in response, well I would leave it to each of you who responded to satisfy yourselves with the record of your rants and raves.

    If you are reflective of Lim Kit Siang’s and the DAP’s ideology and its understanding of rights and the law, then long will he and the DAP remain in opposition.

    It requires much more to convince a majority of even the most simple minded (which the Chinese believe are the Malays) that they the DAP and their leader Lim Kit Siang are the party to be in government.

    Apologies for the use of spell check this time.


  29. #29 by steven chan on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 8:32 am

    Its an attempt in vain to make changes to the present stubborn govt setup as they are beyond redemption like the police, courts, MACC n even parliament is 1 sided. Its so surprising that Nazri can even say that the govt cannot do anything about PKFZ and Lingam cases. Since its impossible to change them we have to change them in the next GE.

  30. #30 by negarawan on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 9:12 am

    The Anwar case is a matter of grave concern as the gross injustice against him done by an UMNO-controlled court and judiciary is really worse than what happened in Apartheid South Africa. We should be concerned that his life may even be under threat by dark elements in UMNO. There is really an extremely serious need for a coordinated effort by foreign countries and institutions to pressure UMNO. It is also our hope and prayer that UMNO will be defeated in the coming GE to make way for a new government. It is just so sad to see our country deteriorate so drastically to a place where there is rampant corruption and imcompetence in our UMNO-led government, judiciary, police force, election commission, public education system, and the heat of racialism is on the continued rise. UMNO must go for the sake of Malaysia.

  31. #31 by cto on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 9:42 am


    No apologies for spelling errors and typos required. Dagen and Justitia are not commenting on these errors per se but rather the irony that you are commenting on the errors in the article when your posting has errors. You just made yourself look stupid, that’s all. Other than that, no real harm done.

    Can you please share a bit more on your suggestion that “Chinese believe that Malays are simple minded”? Is this your conjecture or do you have some empircal data to support your statement? If this is simply your conjecture, I would suggest that you refrain from making such unfounded and irresponsible statements regarding what one race think about another lest you be accused of inciting racial hatred – the very thing that you are accusing the author of the article without basis.

  32. #32 by k1980 on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 9:48 am

    What is justice? Had PR formed the federal govt in 2008, there would have been no soddie trial even if Saifool the Sod had complained in the International Court of Justice. And Lingam, Ling Ah Sik and many unmo bigwigs would had been found guilty by courts of law under a PR govt. So the judiciary is being manipulated by the administration of the day. Count yourself unlucky, Anwar.

  33. #33 by grkumar on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 1:03 pm

    What do you consider human rights to those who have raised that as an issue? government has the right to do what government has the right to do.

    There is now clearly a call to change the constitution. But have you considered thast thaty right is open to all. The Malays have incumbency and no special procedure is required form the position they hold to make alterations to the constitution of Malaysia.

    Would it therefore also not be right for the Malays to now firmly give force to their interpretation to their views of the constitution? lets see what that will amount to since thats what the mainly Chinese here want.

    • #34 by House Victim on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 10:40 pm


      The Rights of the Government are granted under the Constitution with Obligations!!
      So are the Rights of the People. Human Rights are for the Balance of both and same to be the basic principle for a Justified Constitution!!
      No contradiction if they are to be on a Fair Bases!!

      A civilised society is to based on logic as well as fairness. Jumping over these with the emphasis of number only will drag the society back to the days of the old Kampung with cane or even swords to be emphasized.

      How much the average Malay is getting in compare with those cronies in power and those related? And, how many are still below the average dispites of the preference policy “mis-interpreted and expanded” by MHT? (Same for the non-Malay!) Most of the Average Malaysians are not receiving the Average Service from the Government and in many ways been dennied or abused with what should be the obligations of the Government.

      GE12 has demonstrated that many Malays, at least with the 5 states taken by the Opposition, have realized that the BN Government had not been working for them. They want a change after 50 years!!

      THE HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT ON RACIAL BASIS – do not tried to mark it as Chinese, or, whatsoever!!

      How many times the Constitution has mentioned People?
      The starting point of Malay in the Constitution is the Aborigines!!

      Whay Malaya has changed to Malaysia? It is to emphasized that the country is for Malaysians and not just for Malay!! Internationally, a citizen started as one is borned there, or, having a lineal blood relationship with its citizen or via marriage, or. who will carryout the obligations of a citizen, such as via immigration. Many Indonesians or Muslim were allowed to get their citizenship in Malaysia but comparative very few are for the others!!

      Suppressing the Rights of one group so as to “Pop-out” the Rights of another should not be done by any Democratic or Fair Government. But in Malaysia, most of this “Pop-out” group has not even enjoy what the average should have!!

      How often the “Malay”. or “Chinese”, or, “Indian” welfare be really looked into, except when it was election dates? Even fund for flooding has its light only during the election!!

  34. #35 by lchk on Thursday, 28 October 2010 - 1:30 pm

    “There is now clearly a call to change the constitution. But have you considered thast thaty right is open to all. The Malays have incumbency and no special procedure is required form the position they hold to make alterations to the constitution of Malaysia.”

    The above article has absolutely nothing to do with calls to amend the constitution despite your best attempts to insinuate that it is so (in vain, I might add).

    It has to do squarely with the right of legal representation and the questioning of a non-existent social contract which has been brandished like a sacred totem of which no Malaysian may question or even look at it cross-eyed.

You must be logged in to post a comment.