What is appealing about the Abdul Malik arrest?

He blogged about burning Vivian, the Minister. He called on the people to vote out the govt. He was arrested for inciting violence. And cyberspace is on fire with many voicing support for Abdul Malik. I must say that the word ‘burn’ is a very sensitive word here. We kind of developed a phobia for burning politicians. Bloggers are well advised not to use such a word in their blogging. I don’t know if Abdul Malik’s call to vote out the govt is against any law. Or could it be a call that can only be uttered during a general election? What is important here is to look at Abdul Malik himself and ask if he is a terrorist, someone trying to incite violence, or is he just a blogger, like many bloggers, including me, spurting generalization and at times nonsensical and provocative comments. My only concern is not to treat bloggers as terrorists or dangerous elements out to destroy the social fabric of our country.


Wally Buffet said...

He rightly should be investigated.

Spewing words of hatred is different from expressing a point of view however opinionated.

To my mind, he is clearly skating on thin ice when he wrote what he did.

What exactly is his agenda?

We not only have dark pools in the stock market. The internet also has its dark side.

Anonymous said...

What's anti-social, anti establishment, anti government and anti anything ?

The dictionaries are likely to define them generally, however, the arbitraments of the words invariably will be the Rulers' prerogative. As Rulers, they can define the Laws to their whims, fancies and advantages.

Anyone, any organization or establishment believes the Rulers could be reasonable or even neutral in dealing with their subjects ?


Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

When Matilah says 'fuck the minister', we all know that he doesn't mean it literally and will not do it physically

Is Abdul Malik meaning what he said? I would think a word of caution to him would be enough unless he is adamant and meant what he said and has the intention to act on it.

We are still suffering from the disease called 'Over reaction'. No need to let our imagination go on a hallucination trip.

Anonymous said...

If i said "Ho Ching got burnt on several not so savvy investments" does that constitute 'hatred' too

Anonymous said...

In time to come, animals will have more rights than humans in red dot.

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean, if you need me to clarify, I would say you are the one with the problem if you don't understand the subtleties of language :)

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. If there are overt threats made or there is a well-presented call to violence (inciting violence) then that is already out of the realm of free speech and into criminal intent.

There is a difference in saying "that guy is a cunt, I hate him and hope he gets ball cancer" and "let's kill the guy". Abusive speech is free -- no one or no idea is immune from ridicule, derision, racial or other bigotry and hatred, as unpleasent as those things might be.

Threatening speech or speech which implies a physical threat -- like a call to arms to kill or injure someone -- whether a ransom is offered or not -- is not and can never be free.

When a robber tells you" "Your money or your life" you have to take it as serious that he will kill you if you don't hand over your cash...and chances are when you do, he won't hold up his end of the bargain.

The choice of words used must always be viewed in the context of the speech to make a sound judgement. Unfortunately the state is the "authority" who unilaterlly determines this -- so, in a sense, once a blogger is "busted", good luck to him. It is in the hand of the "judiciary" which means, you take what you get.

Another difference between allowed free speech and "criminal" speech:

If someone calls you an "Arsehole and hopes you fall under a bus", you can respond in kind, or simply ignor the idiot.

However if someone says he "hates you and is going to beat you up or kill you", that is an entirely different matter.

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean: clarification

My first para "you" -- I don't mean "you personally". "You" as in generic non-specific pronoun.

Anonymous said...

Me believes a country can be burnt without cathing fire.

And me will accept any opinion that does not agrees with mine.


Anonymous said...

My apology Folks;

'cathing' should be 'catching'.

Sorry for the Spelling Mistake.


Anonymous said...

Hi, and who says a country cannot sink without been inundated by water ?

A muddle headed Ruler would cause the downfall of any country as history had shown repeatedly.