Thursday 23 August 2012

Khairy Jamaluddin, Umnoputras are above the law, no?

YOURSAY 'Khairy Jamaluddin, we have same law but the way it is interpreted differs depending on which side you are in.'

Khairy: I'm willing to be charged under 114A

your sayAnonymous #18452573: Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin (KJ) sounds like the little spoilt kid shouting to the world that he doesn't mind if his own gang kicks him in the face when he knows they never will.

Join Pakatan Rakyat and make that same challenge and see if they do. This is all big talk when you are hiding behind Umno-BN regime's skirt.

Anonymous_400c: Khairy, not everyone is as privileged as you are, having access to a lot of resources to fight court cases, especially bad laws.

Why not you help eliminate section 114A of the Evidence Act before it becomes law? How can you get votes when you can't do the right thing?

Tholu: Actually you (Khairy) have just inadvertently endorsed the widely known fact that the AG (attorney-general) is but an instrument under BN and is instructed to exercise selective persecution - only prosecute those who oppose the government.

You say you are confident of proving you were not responsible for the Facebook posting, but I am absolutely certain that this case will not have a chance to even peep the courtroom.

The police will investigate (or play a drama and pretend to investigate) and then declare that you had proven (beyond a shred of doubt) to them your innocence and consequentially no charges will be preferred against you.

However, it would be interesting to know the identity of the actual person which may surface in the course of your establishment of innocence and whether the police will charge him if he is a BN supporter.

Bumiasli: The same KJ who has denied many of his actions is now indirectly admitting guilt. It could be pressure from his bosses.

And calling DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng a desperado was mischievous. The real desperado is KJ himself, who is now at the crossroads, not knowing to turn right or left. Just count your days as MP.

Queenie: But Khairy, you are an Umnoputra and Umnoputras are above the law, no? Why, they can even get away with murder literally.

If you were part of the opposition, the full weight of the 'law' would have descended upon you. Is that not the intention of introducing this Act - to silence the opposition so that the truth can be suppressed?
Bartimaeus 2020: The richest unemployed is good at play acting: trying to give us the impression that Umno enforces the law impartially. But we shall not be fooled.

Is he also prepared to investigated by an independent panel over the ECM Libra scandal. The following excerpt is illustrative:

"Nothing uncovers fraud behaviour than inconsistency in someone's or an organisation's public position. Where exactly was the indignation of Umno Youth when Umno bloggers and Utusan Malaysia ignited the campaign against Christianity?

"Remember that talk that Christians wanted to take over Malaysia - allegations that have been proven mischievous and wrong.

"Umno Youth was silent then because the movement was happy for its associates to create a sense of siege and fear among Muslims and hopefully drive them into the arms of Umno. Where was Khairy then? Where was Umno Youth?"

Chuath: I think Christians believe that it's about personal faith, and making Christianity an 'official' religion of the country is not what will make the difference.

Anyway, what does ‘official religion' mean? Land for churches? Tax exemption? Bibles not barred? Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia? Freedom to tell others about the gospel?

I think it is not turning Christianity into an ‘official religion' that will make any of that happen. It requires respect for Christians and a law which allows freedom of religion. And that hopefully even Khairy can do.

Armageddon: We have same law but the way it is interpreted differs depending on which side you are in.

Human Being: Khairy failed to understand what section 114A of the Evidence Act is. You cannot be charged under this section.

It is a section laying down the procedural law of evidence, i.e. the judge will only convict an accused charged under any other offence in connection with the abuse of cyberlaw, if that accused cannot prove his innocence.

The burden of proof is put on the accused and not on the prosecutor. One can only be charged if he had offended a substantive law and not an evidential law.

Wira: Khairy, why do you or anyone have to prove that you are not the originator of those posts?

Under the common law, the onus of proof is on the one who accuses and not the one who defends or is denying the charge. That's why we are against the amendment to the Evidence Act.

Trublumalaysian: KJ, let me put it this way. You know it and Malaysians know it, but the Umno warlords will stop you from agreeing with it.

The following would suffice: "Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practise is when some things work but no one knows why. In Umno's lab, theory and practise is combined - nothing works and no one knows why."

No comments:

Post a Comment