Thursday, November 13, 2008

Civil Dissent Debate

This is a letter which I received from one of my voters, who has kindly permitted me to publish it here. I do not wholly agree with the views expressed by him, but the point here is the space for discussion, which is what a mature democracy is all about.

At the same time, I would not go to the extent that we should go to the streets for every little protest. There needs to be a discretionary balance. In my opinion, the Bersih rally last year galvanised the nation, so should we not have had it?

We can certainly agree on certain issues, while agreeing to disagree on others.

Dear YBs,

We want you to be free to attend Parliament, State Assembly meetings. We don't want you to be behind bars or be found guilty of breaking the law.

Should this happen, we, the constituents will have no voice in the Dewan Rakyat or Dewan negeri. we will only be the losers.

I myself hate such laws, as much as you do. But the law is the law, and it's very clear about getting a permit for any public gathering for such purposes.

Agreed you may have tried many times to get permits from a biased Police force, and failed. Still it is no excuse to break the law. This is what the present authority wants you to do - break the law, then they try you, find you guilty, fine you or imprison you and deprive you of your seat in Parliament of the State assembly. The Police will act-with or without provocation. What will happen if your group has been infiltrated ? The saboteur will only need to throw a small stone, and all hell will break loose ! You'll be accused of trying to overthrow the Government by force, and IMMEDIATELY arrested under the ISA ! That's what the Police and especially Syed Hamid Albar wants. We don't want that to happen, do we ? The Police are not clean. They came with guns and knives, ready to throw these weapons among you and then accuse you of being heavily ARMED with dangerous weapons !

I am just as frustrated as you are. You were lucky, they decided to,let you out to allow you to ask your first question in Parliament. You may not be so lucky the next time. Then I'll be even more frustrated !

Until the day we have a new government, we cannot change the law. When there is a NEW government in place, with a 2/3 majority, then, and only then, we can make changes.

File reports against the Police, bring up the issue in Parliament, alert internation bodies , play up the issue in the press, internet, blogs, but please do not fall into their trap, call ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY !

The Negara ku, our NATIONAL anthem and our flag is the pride of our nation, The Negara Ku is meant to be sung at legal occasions with respect-not at an illegal demonstration. Get your permit - and you can sing it with patriotism and pride ! - without fear !

In the meantime, those who are opposed to the ISA,SEDITION ACT, POLICE ACT 27, ect ect, will have to be patient. We, the people of Malaysia, waited 51 years to see the BN lose it's 2/3 majority, and 5 states. We'll wait for the NEXT election to see further changes.

So please be careful next time, for they can even act if you hold it INDOOR !

"27A. (1) Where any activity takes place on or in any land or premises which do not constitute a public place and—
(a) the activity is directed to, or is intended to be witnessed or heard or participated in by, persons outside the land or premises, or is capable from all the circumstances of being understood as being so directed or intended; or

(b) the activity attracts the presence of twenty persons or more outside the land or premises; or

(c) the activity is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to excite a disturbance of the peace, any police officer may order the persons involved in the activity to stop the activity and may order all persons found on or in or outside the land or premises to disperse.
(2) Any person who disobeys any order given under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where three or more persons neglect or refuse to obey any order given under subsection (1), the activity concerned shall be deemed to be an unlawful activity, and all persons taking part or concerned in the activity, or in organizing or directing the activity, shall be guilty of an offence."

I don't mean to educate you, for you should know better.

Stanley Teoh
PJ Utara


Anonymous said...

Hi everyone,

For me to ask for a permit is like acknlowedging such draconian and unjust law and will send a wrong signal to the public at large. DAP has always been firm on this, and i think we must not sacrifice our principle easily.

Btw, i honestly think that such laws will be abolished soon after the next election, when Pakatan Rakyat come into power...=)

YB Tony, I thank you for your sacrifice and I want to let you know that there many many many young people, including me, who are very very very proud of you!

Anonymous said...

kinda agreed with the letter. the first question when i knew about the arrest was whether you had the permit to have the assembly. i always think that we should have demonstration in a hall or stadium where we will not disturb the public traffic and convenience. i know what you do is for good cause, but police are just waiting for chance to get rough. don't give them chance to do so. we all know mainstream media is controlled by BN. therefore, many people won't know about what the red helmet boys did to you.

Anonymous said...

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Anonymous said...

why not conduct rallies thru the net instead. no need to get police permit for this right? it can be the first cyberspace rally. stanley has a point & i agree with him. we all know that if it was an bn-umno gathering to protest about the nep & racial issues, there won't be any fru or police officers around. maybe just 1 or 2.

we need to be more prudent against such a police force & sly gov. we need to weigh the situation to rally on the streets. so, be more selective & rally if necessary on bigger-meaningful current issues. bersih rally can be carried out before the next election if need.

on one hand, yes, it has painted an ugly picture to s'gor chief police. but he will always turn around to use all the excused / reasons they come prepared for. the law & rules are made for them to bend, not for the innocent & peaceful rakyat. our politics, police, law have not come to that maturity stage yet.

give & take another generation of 10-15 years maybe. but right now, it is still the old school in control. that is 'saya tak suka di cabar' sums it all up.

u-en said...

With respect to your constituent, it is the civic duty of citizens to protest against laws they believe to be unjust or otherwise defective. And in our case the right of peaceful protest is itself curtailed by law.

While there is merit to the argument that as an elected representative you should not endanger yourself (and in so doing risk depriving your constituents of a voice in Parliament), the opposite also holds true: If your constituents are unable or unwilling to protest an unjust law, then is not also your duty to do so on their behalf?

It matters very little if you are then arrested and thrown in gaol--if have the support of the majority of your constituents, punitive action against you will result in galvanising a movement. I suppose this is a logic of martyrdom that motivates some people's desire to get themselves collared.

But every popular revolution in history, violent or peaceful, has succeeded or failed not through the will of individuals, but through the the collective anger of the masses. Of course, this has not always resulted in a fairer or better society--often it creates conditions of even greater repression--and yet the logic of it remains valid.

U-En Ng

Anonymous said...

YBs job are so difficult.
It is the very same people who voted them in who are staging the protest - not the YBs. The YBs are showing us their support, and we appreciate their presence. If they do not turn up, we are not happy. If they turn up, we are not happy.
Yes, so far they have been shouting till their throats run hoarse in parliament ... to no avail! This kind of stuff only work when there is a democratic govt. From the writer's concerns, the govt has succeeded - obedience and fear - and you still ain't going to get your voice heard.
We have been taught to sing the National Anthem since young ... and this is the first time I hear it classified wrong for the national anthem to be sung by "illegal assemblies" (we are ordinary good folks,and we are doing our bit for the families of those arrested under ISA. It is not for fun!). This"illegal assembly" also prayed to God in their hearts for deliverance ... would you equate this to disrespect to God? Would the police arrest illegal immigrants, prisoners, robbers if they sing the national anthem? Probably not. It is much easier to arrest the defenceless and harmless.
Yes, we should be concerned about our voices being heard in parliament ... at the same time we should not only think of ourselves, but be more humane, compassionate and champion the downtrodden! We have our parts to play also, and not let the YBs carry all the burden - they are human too and they have families. It is teamwork.

K L said...

Operasi Lalang coming ?

Anonymous said...

Catch 22...

People elected, you to bring change & end corruption, but when you end up in jail to fight for those ideals, the people complain why so stupid allow yourself to be in such a situation.

can't win them all & especially can't make everyone happy.

vikraman said...

For an unjust law is no law at all. At that point it become our duty to ignore that law and oppose with all our might.

St Augustine, 4th Century AD.

I think that says it all no?

Taman Desa (Seputeh Constituency)

Anonymous said...


First of all,
I would like to assume that Stanley is perhaps a law undergrad or doing something related to law.
It's unfair to question his statement since he wont be replying, but for me, it sounds a bit law-die-hard-fans-idealistic.

I never deny the important existence of law. But shouldnt we be more realistic when facing with some unjust implementation of laws? Law itself seems to be fair, but implementation of law does not. Why should we people scare of government and its machienary? People always forget a fact: Government itself doesnt have any power, the power is given by the people, more specifically during election. Without people, government could never been exist. And yet, government always manipulates law and plays an unfair game, unacceptably sometimes, with stupid reasons.

Enough is never enough. Does 5 states for oppositions mean a big achievement? First, how this big win came from? We have high spirits of anti-badawi, attacks from opposition and even DR Mahathir himself inside UMNO, high inflation with slowing economy, Racist issues from Hindraf, Bersih rally and etc. If each of them contributes to one of those momentums to that big win, how many of them will fade out in NEXT election? Take a look at Tun Mahathir's blog comments and realize how influential is he among the voters today. The different is perhaps, if u choose to believe in Obama's wave, the expectation and belief in public to "change" the government.

I cant understand why I need to apply a permit to sing Negaraku. Can u tell me why? First, how to define ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY? How about this, ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY means assembly that organized by opposition. Why do we have to stand with that if the definition itself is bias? Why do we need to wait for NEXT election if we know election is gonna occur in nexr 2 years? I always believe politics is a dirty playground. It doesnt really matter how u win it, it's whether u win it or not.

I agreed that might be a trap to imprison u. But so what if u get to be imprisoned? U r not elected to be safe and do a usual job like 9-5 right? I always tell my friends, the reasons many overseas chinese r looking at TonyPua is because he is a big gun. Seriously, many overseas chinese are looking at how good u handle this and whether we should damn go back to serve the country like u. People always say, MCA have better resources, better this and that, and then they join MCA. And do we need a change or do we only wanna be a MP? U started it, and let's see, how many r going to follow u.

If Tony Pua get arrested WITHOUT any REASONABLE excuse from government, U can expect how much momentum is there. If u wanna know how much backing u r getting, dont just look at how u defeated that aunty that called u "so called economist", but also remember us who're from overseas. My view is, be careful when u across the road so that u wont get hit, be careful when u drink so that u wont get choked, dont ever be TOO careful when u fight for us, the people.

If there's to be a change in 2 years, it must be a super big one. Dont ever let the momentum slows down and act when now people expect the changes. After 10 years when people back to the old times and think it's hard to topple the government, u lose ur chips.

That's my thought.

From, a singapore product:

Anonymous said...

law is law, when the law says it's illegal to have mass assembly without permit, we should respect it. if rakyat (majority) don't like the law, they should pressure their respective mp to motion the bill remove that law, since this is democratic country. just like having marijuana is illegal, some ppl think it's not and they can always cite netherlands. we put mp in parliament for the sake in parliament, not in prison in sungai buloh....

Anonymous said...


A motion to remove the law. We desperately wanna remove ISA, it's a much more serious law than getting permit for an assembly. Kindly look at the news and know how our government reponded to that. A motion? This is chrono-godzilla-idealistic.

This is a democracy country? Woops. We labelled ourselves as a democracy country. We laughed at how "democracy" Singapore is. And then, we become more and more "democracy" like Singapore. Would a democracy government ever use ISA to detain anyone that threaten the status of GOVERNMENT, not PEACE OF COUNTRY. We should never equate these 2, and yet, BN leaders especially UMNO leaders misperceive that they are the same.

Is voting system alone symbolizing democracy? Voting process is a subset to democracy, not the other way round. When our government told us that the economic fundamentals are good, I feel like I am not in Malaysia because the data shown is not reflecting how I feel, as a middle class income family. And now u said that Malaysia is a democracy country, and after looking at the history of BN dynasty, I wonder, was I ever be in Malaysia before?

ylcw said...

You do sound like a young man. Your views are welcomed, but your "I do not mean to educate you, as you should know better!" comment is so arrogant! Well, as a grandmother, I tell you "You obviously have not been well educated yourself to be so rude and arrogant towards Mr. Pua."

by: ylcw

Anonymous said...

But here's another perspective. If no police permit is ever required to hold rallies or protest, imagine how many rallies BN-Umno will hold when they lose in the next GE...!? We are not yet ready to deal with the radicals in BN-Umno who always think they are above the law. The pendatang issue was a prime example. Anything said against non-malays cannot be challenged. Not a sensitive issue. This is the kind of mentality we are dealing with. Be mindful of what comes around, goes around.

Anonymous said...

To think that "a law is a law and we should obey it" is very dangerous.Imagine that if a law is so unjust, example, it deprives your citizenship if u criticize the government, and that law is made in compliance with all the procedural you still think that we should respect it and wait for a motion to repeal the law?

ofcourse, this is hypothetical question and maybe and extreme one. But in that scenario are you ready to respect it ?

Anonymous said...

If you want to have a proper democracy, then you have to play by democracy's rules regardless of whether your opponent plays by the same rules or not.

And denzook makes a very salient point when denzook states that if the majority does not like the law, they can pressure their respective MPs to motion for a removal of that law.

Yes, I agree that this may seem like an idealistic notion but it remains logically consistent. If you want to uphold an ideal, it is not consistent to break from that ideal (democracy in this case) just because you perceive your opponent as being undemocratic.

And to Singapore Product S, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, illegal gathering just means a gathering without a permit. And the law is the law. If a gathering was organized without a permit, then it is illegal. Quite frankly, I don't think that this is a very bad law.

Sure, you can argue that the intentions behind the gathering were good and I'm sure they were. But what if there are gatherings in the future whereby the participants gather to support, say, the denial of the Holocaust? YOU might think it's wrong and preposterous but they might be gathering in their best interest. After all, a lot of Germans did really adore Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. And if you say that their gathering should be dispersed, then the same reasoning should be applied to this case. However good the intentions, illegal is illegal.

To vikraman, I like that quote. But it's ultimately very weak. A simple counterargument would just be who decides what is just and unjust? The wise? Then that's just having an authoritarian regime. The majority? Then let's vote it out. I think opposing unjust laws is a great cause but saying that we should just ignore any law that we think is unjust and oppose it with all our might is very slippery. Anyone can just say, "Okay, I think this law is unjust (robbing the rich, for example) and so I'm going to ignore it and oppose it with all my might." It is fallacy to ignore a law, but if indeed democracy thinks it unjust, then by all means amend it. A law cannot be ignored by some pre-conceived measure of justice that not everyone necessarily abides by.

To sum my long ravings up, my basic point is, if you want to uphold to an ideal such as democracy, you better play by the rules of democracy, not the rules of the regime in which you perceive you are.

Anonymous said...

To jeremy:-

Your example is a good one, though very extreme.

Again, as I mentioned in my long ravings above, who ultimately decides what is unjust?

If you, or a group of people to which you belong, think it's unjust and therefore rebel against it, what's to stop another group of people to think another law (which you and your group think is just) is unjust and therefore rebel against it?

Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't repeal laws that are unjust. I'm saying that we have to play by the rules of the ideal to which we want to uphold.

Also, from another perspective. If you want to argue that our current DPM or the PM or whoever is not above the law, then surely all citizens cannot be above the law, whatever the law may be. If we can ignore any law we want, then they can do the same. But that's not the ideal at stake here.

The ideal at stake here is that no one is above the law. And so, by those rules, we cannot go around ignoring a law simply because we think it is unjust.

Anonymous said...

used to "I have a dream" by Martin Luther King Jr. but more appropriate is "Letter from Birmingham Jail" also by Martin Luther King Jr.and to quote...."Sometime a Law is just on its face and unjust in its application.For instance,I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit.Now,there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade.But such an ordinance become unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest."

Many pertinent points in this Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Mr.Pua ....keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Hi Joey K,

No one is above law. Are u serious? I wonder if Utusan Melayu ur favourite newspaper. I dont want to be sarcastic anymore, if not people would really think "illegal gathering" means gathering by opposition.

The thing with "illegal gathering" is there's always doble standard. And that's why I said, it depends on how u define "illegal gathering". If opposition will never get a permit for a gathering that always being perceived as illegal, then there'll never be a gathering for a change. I give u a solid example, if not u would say my argument is too weak. Hindraf, is that illegal? Bersih rally, is that illegal? Singing Negaraku with friends at Mamak stall after eating nasi lemak, is that illegal? What's illegal? If everything happens in the past were all implemented legally, I dont think we'll have a political tsunami in last March. U know how much effort from people is there when they r being hurt, being dispersed by those polices? Dont stick ur ass at ur home and starts to tell me how people should abinded by law.

People want to express their ideas. But people were restricted from doing so in 50 years. Do u think u can ever see Bersih rally under Mahathirism? Did u ever remember how Anwar Ibrahim is being imprisoned and yet, BN government secured 2/3 majority? Dont ever take things for granted. Law maintains the peacefulness f the country, not unjust law.

Under Mahathirism, u wont have Malaysiakini. The media is controlled. People are being sheltered from truth. U know what's illegal? Legal can become illegal when government passes the motion to do so, whoever in majority voices win. That's why Hindraf is illegal now. Pathetic? NO. Because we should still stand by law. When Zaid Ibrahim said it's hard for judical reformation under UMNO, I think he was kidding. Why should we ever reform ? Law is Law. Even it's an unjust law, u should play by DEMOCRACY ways. Yea, the democracy ways the used to happen in last 50 years, which BN totally championed that. A LEGAL REFORMATION in Malaysia? When u first being legal, u lose ur chips to win it. So, where's a new defined democracy then.

A short answer for u.
Who ultimately decides what is unjust?
I believe ratinality does. Rationality is just like a balance. Sometimes when u do something wrong, u know by urself deeply in ur heart that u r. U dont need law to tell u that. But there's a dilemma by implementing laws. Even u do something wrong, and u know that, law can be manipulated so that u r LEGALLY not guilty. But again, the balance in ur heart tells u, u r guilty.



Anonymous said...


Dont go after they say you dont support. Go you may get thrown in the slammer.

I tend to agree with the writer, that if and when you guys are incarcerated, who will be present to speak up and pre empt any bulldozing of bills.

Tough decision Tony

10 Joules said...

I agree with what JoeyK mentioned earlier in one of his comments.

Some of the commenters on this post should realise that they are threading on dangerous ground by contending that individuals should have the discretion to disobey specific laws in a country just because they feel it's unjust.

Imagine an individual who believes that the current laws against rape and murder are unjust. So does that mean it is justifiable for him/her to break those laws and challenge the punishment?

In other words, if it were up to the individuals to decide which law they choose to obey/disobey.. this could cast the country onto the slippery slope to anarchy.

If your response to this is that the justification to break laws is dependent on the situation, then ponder about this :
"Who decides whether it's ok or not? You? Your neighbor, Ali? Who?"

It is because there can never be 100% agreement on all the matters in life that laws exist.

They are there as a written, respected and enforced set of compromise between all the members who subscribe to it in the belief that other members will similarly abide to their end of the bargain.

It's like a driver stopping at the red light at a junction because he believes that the other drivers coming from the other side will too stop and give passage when their traffic light turns red.

The point I'm trying to raise here is that, the law is more than just about permits and illegal gatherings. It covers almost every aspect of our daily lives. And by virtue of the fact that it's a form of compromise between all parties, it's not possible to 'selectively' adhere to it. It's like, if you don't keep your end of the bargain, on what basis do you expect the other parties(rakyat) in this case to keep theirs(in this or the other areas)?

Like Stanley mentioned in his letter, there are proper ways to amend or request for a review of laws that are unjust - through the debate of elected representatives. And even then proper consideration has to be given when the implications of such a change on ALL the members in the country (for sadly, you are not the only citizen of Malaysia) before deciding to review or retain.

In a nutshell, I just want to stress on the importance of using proper and legal means to push for change, if that change is what majority of the voters want.

Sorry if I may sound harsh, but if the new PR government is founded through the disrespect of laws, it certainly raises doubt whether THEY themselves will respect 'their' own laws in the future.

"If they broke them once, they can break it again."

Just food for thought for my fellow patriotic netizens out there. Enjoy your weekend!

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but...
Gandhi led a mass protest and brought the British Empire to it's knees without a single bullet.
Did he have a permit? No
Nelson Mandela too resisted through mass civil disobedience.
Did he have a permit? No
Martin Luther Jr King ( a famously quoted person in this discussion it would seem ) also protested through nonviolent rallies.
Did he have a permit? No
So, what rallies do get permits in our country ( or don't but are sort of condoned by the police )
a. UMNO protest in Penang shortly after 308
b. UiTM protest just because YAB Khalid wanted a 10% non-bumi admission
c. If I remember correctly, there were also rallies protesting the appointment of YB Teresa Kok as Selangor Deputy MB.

-on a seperate matter-
YB Tony I'm surprised that no one in PR has ever spoke out against the unfair distribution of electoral delegation ie. number of Parliament Seats in each state.

Consider this-
Parliament Seats-22

Population- 1 million
Parliament Seats-8

why does Terengganu, with only 1/7 of Selangors population gets to have 8 MPs?
and not so surpirsingly, 7 of Terengganu's 8 MPs are from BN.
so about 32727 Selangorians elect 1 MP averagely whereas 1 Terengganu MP is only elected by 142786 people.

One more outright example will be comparing Sarawak with Selangor
Population-7.2 million
Someone explain this please.

If the seats where distributed fairly based on population,It would almost be a 50-50 tie in the Dewan. So YB Tony please do take this up to the Pakatan leadership.


Jarod said...

I don't see any reason for the police of not granting a permit to have a vigil. We are not even creating a chaos. We are a concern citizen who felt the pain of those ISA detainee that we want to tell the government that this is not right. If the Police have given us the permit, then it would be win-win solution. but oN Malaysia, this is not the case.

As much as i am concern on YB Tony Safety and his commitment toward the PJU area, he and the rest of the YB must come forward to voice out. Else, we are like the people who have no guts to say what is right.

Doing the right thing may not be easy. But that is what that we must do. If we kept quiet, what will the result be?

Unknown said...

The problem with unjust laws is that they are protected, by design, under the umbrella of good laws.

Take, for example, racial segregation was a law in the US many years ago. Anyone who went against segregation was, in effect, breaking the law.

Where there are unjust laws, it is incumbent of righteous and law abiding citizens to, peacefully and peaceably, rally support to oppose them.

We will be failing in our civic duty as decent and civil beings to allow unjust laws to stand.

The highest law for anyone is justice and fair play. One ought to follow his/her inner conscience on this.

Anonymous said...

To JoeyK,

1. I agree with you , we MUST PLAY BY THE RULES OF DEMOCRACY, but your picture of “democracy = votes in parliament by elected representatives”, is incomplete and so your arguments are guided by your wrong perception of what is democracy.

2. Democracy is not only about elected representative and parliament. To have a true democratic system, there are other elements, among others- free and fair election, freedom to form organization and freedom of speech, without which, there is only democracy by name and not substance.

3. In the case of YB Tony Pua and other who protested in the candlelight’s vigil, they were obviously faced with two options.

The first option - to be firm on their principle - it is our DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to assemble and it is absurd to apply for a permit to do so.

The second option, is to obey by the 'law', to apply for a permit to assemble notwithstanding that it is UNDEMOCRATIC. And if you do not get the permit, then just stay at home and do nothing, wait for the next general election, JUST WAIT for a change.

You quite rightly say that we have to play by the democracy rules, now, which of the two options is democratic for you? To obey the law which is fundamentally UNDEMOCRATIC? How do you explain that?

YB Tony and friends did break the ‘law’ which is undemocratic, if you wish to call that a law. They did not cross the line of democracy when they held the candlelight’s vigil. On the contrary, they are the ones upholding the principle of democracy, knowing well that they might be arrested.

4. Another related argument from you is based on the fear that since what is just and unjust is subjective, there are people who may rebel against what you think is just.

The answer is this, if somebody thinks that a law is unjust, go ahead and protest it within the rules of democracy, hold a demonstration, have a candlelight’s vigil. A true democratic government shall allow demonstrations. Instead of arresting people or fire chemical laced water cannons at the protesters, the police shall be there to make sure the demonstrations are done peacefully. That is democracy isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Mr Joeyk,

So the law is the law, no one is above the law. Anyone that breaks the law will get the full impact of the law.

If that is the concept, then in your eyes people like Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, Jose Rizal and others who motivated their people to rise up against oppression should then be condemned. Let's say Martin Luther King & friends were really law abiding, do you think the USA will be what is it today with an african american as president? or if the great Mahatma Gandhi did not lead his followers to civil disobedience, India will still gets its independence from Britian?

Yes, there are law abiding ways to change but the law abiding ways are been purposely kept in the cupboard under lock by the person or group of persons who wants to keep it under lock so that they can remain in power. Yes, there are MPs elected by the people but MPs in Malaysia are subjected to party whips and all the restrains, so much so they are technically there to rubber stamp whatever the boss wants to do. If you say the MPs are the voice of the people, then why is my MP not voicing out my discontent but chose to keep quiet? What are they afraid of? You mean holding a peaceful candlelight vigil is wrong to them? Where is their sense of responsibility towards the voters who sent him there? Why didn't they speak up?

k said...

Dear Stanley. What law? An unjust law is not law at all! If we don't get a little bit more aggresive ie 'Tunjuk Perasaan' or candlelight vigil, we will be bullied FOR EVER!

Anonymous said...

Actually we all know whether we should risk ourselves if we want a revolution. If you sit at home and shout for a change, then we can wait for another 50 years and teach our coming generations to shout again, at home, for a revolution.

Dont be stupid by giving those extreme examples. Those examples given are like those given by Selangor police chief one - simply disgust. U urself know what's the different, but maybe u insist on ur idealistic of law if that's ur principle.

An interesting observation is:
First, police chief denied FIRMLY that people are not singing Negaraku. Then when he knew that there's evidence, he turn 180 degree and gave stupid examples, with the excuse that he was too far from the assembly. Look at how he first denied the fact REGARDLESS how far is he from the assembly!! ... Police chief can do whatever he wants and yet, escape now?

I have some friends studying Bachelor of Philosophy(Arts) and Law. I asked them the reasons of choosing their courses. Those wanting to know the truth will never be in the latter group. Sorry if u feel my selective sampling is not a good representation to the population one.