Several of mGf (short for myGOODfriend, both in the singular or plural)have expressed via email about their apprehension at the goings-on in blogosphere here arising from the defamation suits against two fellow Bloggers, JeffOoi of Screenshots and Ahiruddin Attan of Rockybru.
As a journalist of two decades-plus experience, I am thankful to Jeff for inspiring many of us to take to Blogging, and I am sympathetic to his plight in the spirit of solidarirty with a member of this relatively "young" Fifth Estate, compared with the rivals he and Rocky are facing from a mainstream press, member of the longer-termed Fourth Estate. At the same time, I urge my EsteemedReaders not to comment unnecessarily (esp speculatively) on the two suits as some counsel, rightly in my humble opinion, had raised the point of "sub-judice", and even at this stage we are "not privi" to the 13 articles referred to by the plaintiffs in Jeff's case, and the 48 Posts in Rockybru's.
***Reference: THe Star page N28 today headed:
Blogger applies to strike out suit
Plaintiffs' statement of claims fatally deficient, says Ahirudin****
Back to johnlee's Post, here goes, bear with him because I am only a willing, okay, I'm also the endorsing, pro bono mind YOU!, messenger. I hope to confirm that, at the same time I pray some of our lawyers involved are rendering pro bono services to the two Bloggers involved.
My apprehension was publicised in my post on
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Joining the Bloggers' Bandwagon... ,
Extract~~
Desi feels a little discomforted -- maybe "apprehensive" is the better word -- when I surfed to WalhWithUs linked via Jeff Ooi's update yesterday (I read him daily to hear from one of two horses' mouth -- the other being RockyBru) the developments concerning the NSTP et al's defamation suits against the two fellow Bloggers now making waves beyond the Malacca Straits and South China Sea.
Do I have grounds for my "apprehension"?
YOU -- Time's PRSON OF THE YEAR 2006! -- decide.
_______________________________________________
And one Y&A johnleemk has decided. And I hereby reprise his +Comment posted in the steal of lust night, and the referred ++"Summary" relevant to this morning's discussion (Go read in FULL HIS SUPERB ARTICULATION in his own Blog @infernalramblings.uni.cc. If you don't follow this knightly command, it's YOUR LOSS, not mine, your mind:).
+
"desi, I was absolutely astonished to see this nonsense about Pak Lah's comments on the rule of law being used to interfere with the judicial process. It's absolutely ridiculous. As I said, how on earth could you read Pak Lah's comments in that way? All he did was state that the law applies to bloggers as well - not that Jeff or Rocky are guilty, or that they should be found guilty. All he said was that bloggers (not even referring to any specific ones) are not above the law. How is this wrong?
By johnleemk, at 12:05 AM "
++
Abdullah's Comments: Don't Interfere with the Judiciary's Independence
Home >> Articles >> Malaysian Socio-Politics >>
(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
Apparently, some people are trying to nail Abdullah for ostensibly interfering with the judiciary and passing judgement on a case in contempt of court, simply because he made a simple truistic statement about the rule of law. This kind of commentary makes bloggers look bad, because anyone with a reasonable brain can see that all Abdullah did was defend the rule of law - something unfortunately done by the government only when it benefits them.
(The PM had commented to the media in London:)
"We do not censor the Internet and that’s our policy, but they (bloggers) must understand that there are also laws on defamation and sedition. These laws are enforced. They should bear in mind that they cannot hide and they cannot take advantage of doing something against the law. The law is the law. They cannot hide and hope to be protected under some kind of a cover or whatever they think that they have. And if you want freedom, what is freedom without responsibility? I don't agree with freedom without responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy."
(Johnleemk's take, partial extracts only only; emphasis in BOLD THUS is Desi's.)
"Actually, it is being irresponsible. This is actually one of the more sensible things to have proceeded from Pak Lah's mouth during his administration. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this - certainly Jeff hasn't, since he has prominently placed a notice at the end of each one of his postings about how "INTERNET does not operate in a legal vacuum." The laws on defamation and sedition apply to the internet just as much as they apply to any other medium. (However, there is, as Pak Lah noted, significantly more freedom of speech on the internet because it is not subject to draconian censorship laws such as the Printing Presses &Publications Act.)
I don't think the bloggers supporting Jeff and Rocky would disagree with this statement. Nevertheless, they seem intent on using it to whack Abdullah nonetheless, claiming: Abdullah is an interested party in the defamation suits filed against the two bloggers, and their cases are pending. As such, Abdullah should have refrained from invoking defamation and sedition to incriminate the subject of his comments, and to subtly coerce the Judiciary to prosecute the defendants whose are still at their early stage.
Anyone denying that Abdullah is an interested party in the case would be out of her mind. Abdullah, as the bloggers note, is the President of UMNO which controls the NSTP through a long and convoluted chain of holding companies and conglomerates. However, I find the other assertions highly incredulous and difficult to swallow.
Let's look at the first one - that "Abdullah should have refrained from invoking defamation and sedition to incriminate the subject of his comments". Read his original comment again. Does this sound like he is incriminating the bloggers? He doesn't even sound like he is speaking about Jeff and Rocky in particular - he seems to be addressing the blogosphere as a collective.
Does Pak Lah say "Jeff and Rocky have committed defamation", or even that "Some bloggers have committed defamation"? No. All he says is that we have laws concerning defamation and sedition, that these laws apply to the internet, and that we must respect the rule of law. That's it. How is this even subtly accusing the bloggers concerned of defamation or sedition?
Indeed, this is probably the kind of truism any other Prime Minister would spout if he were placed in a similar situation. "
:
:
:
Written by johnleemk on 10:09:38 am Jan 25, 2007. "
________________________________
One more extract and additional notes from my Wednesday's post~~
"Desi is reproducing his humble Comment made yesterday (Jan 23, 2007) at the said referred site ("WalkWithUs") because I truly feel this subject is of utmost concern to ALL BLOGGERS -- veteran, few years old like Desi, newbies alike -- and I stress that my views are just One Concerned Blogger's, and there is enough room for diversity and divergence of opinions. As I posted earlier: "Blogger's Spectrum as Diverse as Journalists'"
My said Comment (ylchong Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm )time 2.39pm at host's site timeline has NOT appeared as at Jan 26, 2007 as I am penning this Post at this time of checking @10.45AM Jan 26, 2007 and I had just RE-sent it with a PS added:
I am now also apprehensive maybe my Comment was BANNED?
Following my taiko's credo,
THINKING ALLOWED, THINKING ALOUD.
and for Desiderata2000's archival note in:
FOR THE RECORD~~
"ylchong Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Jeff Ooi and Ahiruddin Atan are actual persons who dare to reveal true IDs. Any initiative on their Cause also must reveal their true IDs, otherwise what standards are you following o=if not these TWO LEADERS?
You guys state as if we Bloggers in Malaysia are caught in a Cloak&Dagger situation, to wit:
“Admittedly, we are gripped in a total state of fear, and no one can trust no one. You may not even want to trust us, which is perfectly sensible and understandable. But knowing this country, we simply can’t take chances.”
Take a look in the mirror, you already have planted the seeds of fear and suspicion where in the first instance, there was NONE with me as a blogger who was inspired by Jeff and I started blogging 1-3/4years ago with my ID fully revealed.
I throw back this challenge to you: Show true grit, otherwise, cease and desisit because you can not rise to the clalenge (dilemma) faced by the owners of Screenshots (Jeff) and RockyBru.
PS: I’m RE-sending this (with original copy, typos and all!) as my first one did NOT appear since first posting. Hope I’m lucky second time around.~~ Desi
_____________________________________________
DESI: Am updating this current issue on an urgent basis "on the run todie". Things are in a state of flux. Indeed, these are challenging times for all bloggers, and I wish these are also "interesting times" for some APs out there. If you have to ask "What APs?", you obviously don't want to know and such times better not involve thee. But if you still need to satisfy thy hunger pangs, email me @chongyl2000@yahoo.com, preferably with that cheque...mayhaps? May Day, May Die!
WATCH THIS SPACE TOMORROW as I share some INTI-matey confidential details about my writing journey. Borrowing from RPK's motto, adapted slightly: NO HOLES BARED.
PPS: Am i seeing YOU at the Chinese Assembly Hall for freebies tonight?
And that's not directed at ProjectPetalingStreet, dumbo:(
5 comments:
IMHO, Y&A johnleemk point only valid if Abdullah is NOT the P-M and does not hold any official post.
As in great power come with great responsibilities, a P-M cannot simply speak thing/thinks out of their mind like those in Kopitiam. It may be a tradition since TunM has breaking the rule by speaking anything he like for political gains. But the PEOPLE like johnleemk must AWARE the PM RESPONSIBILITIES.
When the case go on, the PM must learn the sensitivity of the issue and avoid commenting because it WILL RELATE to the case.
moo_t, tell me what was wrong with Abdullah's comment. You are saying he is speaking "like those in Kopitiam" - but all he did was speak up for the rule of law! As I said, any other PM in any country would do the same thing in a similar situation! What fault do you find in Abdullah's comment? Can you tell me?
moo_t and johnleemk and everybody's goode:
Abdullah was precisely courted for his opiniuon bvecause he sits on the PM's chair. By virtue only because he is that chair sitter, the personal to holder privilege wewas extended by the 4th ESate to the First Firster. If any ER is LOST reading this, Desi's quite happy he's achieved the aim of restricting the exchange to Moo_t and johnleemk my mentor, whose last line I reiterate any effective sycophantic PR would:
"Indeed, this is probably the kind of truism any other Prime Minister would spout if he were placed in a similar situation. "
I remain the impartial host and therefore urge moo_t:
Please give thy RAtionale, mousey wan oso cun!:)
johnleemk :
Indeed, no FAULT is found in the Pee-eM speech. We know it has nothing to do with the premier speech logic. It is about adequacy of the premier position when he voice his opinion over a case.
Long Yin Tai (famous Taiwan Social-politics critics) has wrote this on her "With Power on Hand"(Chinese title: 當權力在手),
"Democracy is responsibilities politics. With the given power, the administrator must the held of responsibilities the carried out their work. While media, people representative, critique are given another responsibilities, to give viable critique and monitor the work of administrator. One should not confuse the responsibilities between the two parties"
Follow the rules of the democracy, the administration should not confuse with their power : they have the power to CLARIFY their work, but not the power to COMMENT and CRITICIZE.
I am sorry that I can't translate the lengthy articles over here(or even in my blog). But perhaps people who proficient in multi-lingual like desi can do the work ;)
The Chinese (Big5) article of "With power on hand" is can be read here.
http://dns.bamboo.hc.edu.tw/~sharon/03/03-10.html
Opps, grammar error skip from my incompetent eye .. Here is the correction :
Long Yin Tai (famous Taiwan Social-politics critics) has wrote this on her article : "With Power on Hand"(Chinese title: 當權力在手).
"Democracy is about responsibilities
politics. With the given power, the administrator must held responsibilities to carried out their work.
While media, people representatives, critiques, non-administrative parties, are given another responsibilities, to critique and monitor the work of administrator.
One should not confuse the responsibilities between the two sides.
Post a Comment