Section 3 of the Act defines "seditious tendency" thus: "to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite dissatisfaction aginst any ruler or against any government." I remember my friend Wong Chin Huat, sometime ago pointed out that the definition if applied literally would parlayse the democratic system! For example, he continues, no elections can possibly take place without the opposition instigating dissatisfaction against the incumbent government which could hold true regardless of who is in power.There you go.
A such I will go along with my MP, Sivarasa who said:
Legal punishment alone may prove inadequate because it may instead grant the offenders the self-perceived honour of martyrdom. Police prosecutions for unlawful assembly or sedition miss the point completely and are also oppressive in themselves. Any prosecution should only be for incitement of hate and violence against another religion which is provided for in the Penal Code.
I am relaiably informed that the penalty when charged under the Penal Code is heavier than under the Sedition Act. If guilty, they deserve no less.
Charge the two gang-leaders and whoever the industrious Police can lasoo in and in open court they are given the opportunity to defend themselves and possibly reveal to us the puppet-master(S).
If I read right, the grass-hopper Ibrahim Ali said that one is ISAable if one:
"excite racial sentiment by way of writing, statement or speech so as to cause conflict among
UPDATE: ntv7 8PM news asked its viewers "Should the ISA be used against those who question the position of the rulers, bumiputra rights?" 80% of its viewers said NO!