With the recent charging of influential blogger Raja Petra Kammarudin under the infamous sedition act, one wonders whether the current federal government's promise of reform in really just a thinly veiled lie that 'sounds like it, looks like it, but it is not it'.
Raja Petra was charged under the sedition act, which, in my opinion, is totally unjustified:
1. The Sedition Act charges someone who 'incites the public into violence'. I find nothing seditious about the article, and I don't think anyone has taken to the streets as a result of the article.
2. The appropriate avenue, if DPM Najib is unsatisfied with the article and claims, is to sue Raja Petra with defamation. This obviously falls into the case of civil law; why use the government's resources (AG Chambers) and taxpayer's money? (The Sedition Act is under criminal law) Another example of the government grossly misplacing public funds.
3. Raja Petra has been writing articles like this for years now. Why are the government taking action only now? Is it because Raja Petra's blog was part of the political tsunami that drowned many in the BN? The Empire Strikes Back?
4. Raja Petra has 'kutuk-ed' the PM previously before this. Heck, Raja Petra has kutuk-ed everyone in the corridors of powers at least ten times. No action was taken. One has to wonder: why all the hullabaloo over this one? Does this mean that the number 2 is more powerful than the number 1?
5. With the recent promise of a judicial reform, one has to wonder about the timing of this charge. Sounds like it, looks like it, but is not it?
6. I think the government has taken the wrong route in charging Raja Petra. Now there will be 2 cases for Altantuyah: One is the watered down kangaroo court that is being delayed and delayed again, the other is Raja Petra's trial. By charging Raja Petra, the government has given him the avenue to reveal the information he has, as part of his 'defense'.
Anyone else marveling over the super defense team?
Victor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Interw3bz FTW!
Silly boy. Why write articles potentially seditious (rule number one: don't implicate Malaysian politicians of wrongdoing over the Internet. They no likey.) when you can get Internet p0rn? Tsk tsk. Children nowadays.
I SAW PORN.
Eagle eyes!
Eh.
:(
My article is not seditious - I have gone back to confirm that... Unless you feel like rioting now that you've read my article?
Who said your 'article' was seditious?
You said potentially seditious, hence implying that it was seditious.
Indeed I did. But I didn't say your 'article' was seditious. Neither did I say your article was potentially seditious.
Post a Comment