The Beauty of Rights and Wrongs

I wore red on Malaysia Day.

I am still opposed to any form of public rallies no matter how many times you say that it is within your rights to do so or that it is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. That guarantee is given to you through Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution, much like my right to move freely within the Federation of Malaysia as guaranteed by Article 9(1). But like Article 9, Article 10 too has its limitations, much like Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where everyone has a right to the freedom of assembly and association.  Article 9 of the Federal Constitution has its limitations set in Article 9(3), while Article 10’s limitations are spelt out in Article 10(2), (3) and (4).  Similarly Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has its limitations set in Article 29 of the same.  It reads:

 

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

What do the above mean?

Article 29 reminds us that we not only have rights but also duties (Clause (1)); the limitations on rights not only may (Clause (2)) but also must be drawn (Clause (3)).  The notion that freedom of speech and assembly are absolute is an absolute nonsense.  Therefore, I and other motorists, have more rights to the roads that are blocked by demonstrators as we pay the tax for the use of these roads using our vehicles, not the demonstrators on foot.  Nevertheless, I wore red on Malaysia Day, just as some 150,000 red shirt demonstrators gathered to rightfully voice out their grievances as did the ones in yellow two weeks earlier.

Why was I in red?

I was not in favour of the original theme where it was to be a Malay thing and about Malay rights, although I admit the undertone is very much that. Since the general elections in 2008 Pakatan Rakyat (especially DAP) has been harping on issues pertaining to race and religion and has on occasions even challenged both the sanctity of Islam and the Rulers Institution. They would push the envelope to see what would break the Malays. They rule Penang, and rule Selangor by proxy.

It is also no secret that more than 80 percent of office holders in DAP are evangelists, and DAP has been challenging the sanctity of Islam especially in the Kalimah Allah and the DUMC cases. If you want to know more about both cases and why is Malay allowed to be used in Bibles in Indonesia, Sabah and Sarawak, just search this blog for “DUMC” and “The Case for God” series.  Not even before the 13th May 1969 tragedy had inter-religion issues come into play by politicians, yet this time DAP pushed this envelope, misleading the people on the laws and Constitution, went to the extent of being in contempt of the courts just for their political ambitions.  Every quarter they would organise rallies asking for things that have been fulfilled and played up old and expired issues just to incite hatred towards the Malays. This had me write a long post in Malay prior to the previous general elections asking Malay voters to reject DAP.

So, yes, when I wore red, it was because of my absolute hatred for all that DAP has done thus far in trying to tear the fabric of this nation.  DAP here means the Malay, Chinese and Indians who are in that party and their supporters. And although I am against any public rallies, I am very glad that finally the silent majority have spoken.  I really hope there would be more, and organised in places like Penang.  And I am glad that former navy and air force commandos were seen in red and were among those on the streets of KL and at Padang Merbok.

And like the hypocrites they are, the advocates of the Pakatan-driven BERSIH have even  praised the police for releasing tear gas at the red shirts who flocked the Petaling Street area, the second time they have done so; the first being during the Low Yat incident – and definitely the first time they have actually supported police action against a group of protesters.  When it happened to them, they were quick to say it was a breach of human rights.  Not surprising the political-party-wannabe Barua Council was also silent on this.

I must commend the police for the way they handled the red shirts’ do and for taking action against those who breached the restrictions placed by the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.  I must commend also the organisers and participants for maintaining discipline and following the instructions of the police based on the requirements of the same Act.  This goes to show who are the ones uncouth, rude, racists and have cow-shit for brain.

Remember, this is not so much about the underlying message, this is about freedom of speech, assembly and association.  It is the rights of the red shirts as it is also for the yellow bellies shirts as claimed, and no one (according to the Barua Council) has the right to stop people from expressing themselves.  This must certainly be a very bitter pill for them to swallow.

As for the message, let this be a reminder that Newton’s Third Law is in force. For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. And the next time there is an action by the yellow-shirts or in any form that they may appear in, I will be amongst my former comrades and others in red.  That is the beauty of the Rights they yellows have been shouting about, only to have it used against their Wrongs.

Will it be a walk against the Chinese?  Do I hate the Chinese? No. My brother-in-law is Chinese. My late uncle was Chinese. My second cousins, two families, are half-Chinese.  I only hate the Daddy Anak Party.