While some say ‘yes’, one has bluntly described the PM as a liar for renegading on his promise to repeal it.
FMT
PETALING JAYA: The Prime Minister’s recent decision to retain and strengthen the Sedition Act 1948 instead of repealing it as he promised two years ago, has drawn mixed reactions from Malaysian netizens of all races with some openly applauding the verdict, and others vehemently disapproving of it.
32-year-old Farhan Paan who said the act should be maintained to enable the authorities to take stern action against those who “hurt the feelings” of others in our multiracial and multi-religious society, added, “Even if the Act were to be amended, the amendments should strengthen the role of the Act in protecting important matters that were enshrined in the Federal Constitution and in preventing seditious actions from becoming rampant.”
Zul Hisyam too accepted the decision stating, “Taking a u-turn for the national security is (a) norm among the world’s renowned leaders. I don’t see anything wrong here. Najib’s decision should be welcomed to avoid any untoward incidents. We hope that the execution of the Sedition Act will be fair to all Malaysians.”
Another in favour of the PM’s decision was Thilagavathy Tanggarajah, 35, who said that as a Malaysian, she was well aware of how the government needed the Act to ensure stability and harmony among the country’s various races. “It should indeed be strengthened!” she added.
Meanwhile, Bank Manager Lawrence Tan, 54, said, “Our Prime Minister is no different than any (other) good politician around the world. To ensure UMNO remains relevant, he must be in a position to unite all Malaysians via the Umno vehicle. He chose the Sedition Act to promote this concept.”
Lawyer Oliver John, 31, however had a different interpretation of Najib’s decision saying, ”He’s playing the crowd. Simple as that really. Much of Najib and his initiatives have been marked by one set of talking points for conservatives versus another set of talking points for progressives or international media. I feel the Sedition laws are by their very nature archaic and ancient. At its core, it criminalises the simple act of voicing out thoughts.”
John also said that when such a huge power was given to an entire government, suppression of freedom of thought, speech and expression was inevitable.
John added, “Modern ‘sedition’ laws are now by and large replaced by defamation laws, which is simply a civil suit undertaken by the aggrieved party against the so-called defamer.”
Justin Chow, 29, meanwhile felt Najib’s retention of the Sedition Act was a reflection on Umno. He said, “People from Umno are losing confidence in him so I guess he needs to do something to regain the party’s confidence. Not only that, by retaining and strengthening (the Act) it shows how desperate Umno has become that they have to resort to using the Act to control the people and instil fear in them.”
Chindy Wong, 42 added, “Our Prime Minister is a liar for saying he will abolish the Act, then later retaining and strengthening it! How are we supposed to trust someone who goes against his word? If the act is retained, it should be reviewed and improvised so that it is not abused by anyone.”
PETALING JAYA: The Prime Minister’s recent decision to retain and strengthen the Sedition Act 1948 instead of repealing it as he promised two years ago, has drawn mixed reactions from Malaysian netizens of all races with some openly applauding the verdict, and others vehemently disapproving of it.
32-year-old Farhan Paan who said the act should be maintained to enable the authorities to take stern action against those who “hurt the feelings” of others in our multiracial and multi-religious society, added, “Even if the Act were to be amended, the amendments should strengthen the role of the Act in protecting important matters that were enshrined in the Federal Constitution and in preventing seditious actions from becoming rampant.”
Zul Hisyam too accepted the decision stating, “Taking a u-turn for the national security is (a) norm among the world’s renowned leaders. I don’t see anything wrong here. Najib’s decision should be welcomed to avoid any untoward incidents. We hope that the execution of the Sedition Act will be fair to all Malaysians.”
Another in favour of the PM’s decision was Thilagavathy Tanggarajah, 35, who said that as a Malaysian, she was well aware of how the government needed the Act to ensure stability and harmony among the country’s various races. “It should indeed be strengthened!” she added.
Meanwhile, Bank Manager Lawrence Tan, 54, said, “Our Prime Minister is no different than any (other) good politician around the world. To ensure UMNO remains relevant, he must be in a position to unite all Malaysians via the Umno vehicle. He chose the Sedition Act to promote this concept.”
Lawyer Oliver John, 31, however had a different interpretation of Najib’s decision saying, ”He’s playing the crowd. Simple as that really. Much of Najib and his initiatives have been marked by one set of talking points for conservatives versus another set of talking points for progressives or international media. I feel the Sedition laws are by their very nature archaic and ancient. At its core, it criminalises the simple act of voicing out thoughts.”
John also said that when such a huge power was given to an entire government, suppression of freedom of thought, speech and expression was inevitable.
John added, “Modern ‘sedition’ laws are now by and large replaced by defamation laws, which is simply a civil suit undertaken by the aggrieved party against the so-called defamer.”
Justin Chow, 29, meanwhile felt Najib’s retention of the Sedition Act was a reflection on Umno. He said, “People from Umno are losing confidence in him so I guess he needs to do something to regain the party’s confidence. Not only that, by retaining and strengthening (the Act) it shows how desperate Umno has become that they have to resort to using the Act to control the people and instil fear in them.”
Chindy Wong, 42 added, “Our Prime Minister is a liar for saying he will abolish the Act, then later retaining and strengthening it! How are we supposed to trust someone who goes against his word? If the act is retained, it should be reviewed and improvised so that it is not abused by anyone.”
No comments:
Post a Comment