Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Zam triviliased the police reports lodged by DAP members

Zainuddin Maidin is trivializing the matter when he accused the DAP of having hidden agenda when it lodged police reports against several Umno members for their fiery speeches at the recent party general assembly, when focus should be put on how to preserve national unity by preventing UMNO delegates from making such racist remarks in future publicly again.

Zainuddin Maidin was commenting on several police reports lodged by DAP members against racist remarks of some UMNO delegates and Datuk Badruddin Amilruddin’s May 13 threat to the non-Malay two years ago at the same platform.

To date, there are already five police reports lodged and the fifth one was lodged by Penang DAP in Penang last Saturday. Out of these five police reports, two were lodged by me. My first report was lodged against several UMNO delegates who made racist remarks during the just concluded UMNO general assemblies. The second report was lodged on last Friday against similar remarks made by UMNO MP for Jerai, Datuk Badruddin Amilruddin two years ago in the same occassion.

I cannot agree more with what Zainuddin Maidin when he said that DAP was motivated by self-interest when we lodged these police report.

I must stand up to make it very clear that it is the responsibility of every citizen to come out to preserve racial and social harmony in Malaysia especially it is severely under threat after fiery speeches by UMNO delegates and MP. To lodge a police report against them is merely a fundamental step that must be taken before others, especially UMNO members from continuing such insensitive action.

I cannot agree more with Zainuddin’s statement when he said that DAP asked the police to also investigate UMNO fiery speakers under Internal Security Act (ISA). I must make it clear that I have never asked the police to launch any investigation under ISA. I wonder how a professionally trained journalist like Zainuddin could make such a basic but colossal mistake when he did not read my police report before he commented on the issue.


What I mentioned in my two police reports are that the fiery speeches by UMNO delegates are seditious in nature as these speeches promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia, according to the definition of seditious tendency.

Section 3 and 4 were quoted in my first police report as I intend to assist the police in helping them to identify why I consider the statement as seditious, when this is the most precise legal document in the Land that provide the clearest definition of an act of sedition, including the definition of seditious tendency.

Even if I use content of the Act to point out to the police the seditious element of UMNO delegates’ fiery speeches, it does not necessarily mean that I ask the police to launch investigations under the the Act, or to ask the Attorney-General to charge those UMNO delegates under the Act.

In fact, when Zainuddin said that the DAP ‘agrees’ to ISA and Sedition Act, which is ‘in contradiction with the long standing position of the party to urge the government to abolish the Acts’, does he also agree that UMNO delegates’ fiery speeches are not only seditious in nature, but are also posing serious harm and damages on our social and racial harmony, especially when he claimed that the police reports DAP members lodged show that the act is necessary?

Of course, I also cannot agree more with Zainuddin when he said that DAP has hidden agenda as we are merely saying in our reports that the fiery speeches of UMNO delegates are seditious in nature not to charge them under the Act as it is the job of the police and the Public Prosecutor to raise the charge against UMNO delegates, if they found that there are valid and solid proofs to do so.

I must remind Zainuddin that DAP members had always been threatened numerously that we will be charged under Sedition Act whenever we stand up for public interest and justice, one of the very infamous example is that the defense of the 1957 Merdeka Constitution and “social contract” is regarded as an arrestable offence under the Sedition Act, where the DAP condemns the unilateral ‘929 Declaration’ by former PM, Tun Dr Mahathir that Malaysia is already an Islamic State, while Mahathir and other BN leaders and member enjoy legal immunity for the real “sedition” of openly challenging the 1957 Merdeka Constitution and “social contract” with his “929 declaration”!

Therefore, Zainuddin should be able to differentiate between the real seditious act (by UMNO delegates) and the victimization of DAP members under the Act whenever we stand up for public interest and should not merely equate our police reports with the victimization of DAP members and others under Sedition Act.
Post a Comment