So you see, you must suffer some loss of reputation or have suffered a financial loss by what I said about you. But if what I said has nothing to do with you but was about someone else and you suffered nothing from what I said how could you sue me? What is your locus standi? And what has the political party you support or do not support got to do with this?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

EDITOR: Many of you were not born yet in 1957 and yet you make so much noise about Article 153. Why apply different standards for different people?

RPK, do you realize how consistently inconsistent you really are? By the way, May 13 tragedy happened in 1969 and not 1957.

I remember reading your article on this tragedy and that you yourself interviewed Tunku Abdul Rahman in person. You got your article published in Harakah and this was repeated in your blog not too long ago when you were the RPK that people looked up to.

I have to honestly say that I don’t know what Article 153 is. I assume it to be the May 13 tragedy.

EDITOR: You can't simply sue The Edge. You need locus standi and must prove you have been personally injured. Why are Pakatan supporters so stupid? Janganlah buka mulut kalau jahil. Malulah!

RPK, you were once an avid supporter of Pakatan and even risked your own safety canvassing and helping them win handsomely. You even got sent to Kamunting for that cause. I won’t repeat your last two phrases. It sounds too …… demeaning.

****************************************************

That was Alan Yeap’s comment, which he posted from the Shangri La Far Eastern Plaza Hotel in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan.

First of all, when someone accuses me of being consistently inconsistent, he or she has to be specific and offer some examples. I may be accused of being cheong hei (longwinded), but at least there is no confusion as to what I am trying to say.

If I were to say that the DAP leaders are not sincere, that would be a sweeping and very vague statement. Such an allegation would need examples to support what I say. In what way are they insincere and what is it they have done and/or said to give me the impression that they are insincere? To make a sweeping and vague statement is just not acceptable. That, sometimes, is the advantage of being cheong hei. You go into details and throw in a lot of examples to support whatever statement you make.

Thus, where is my inconsistency? Did I say yesterday that Islam is the best religion and today I say that Islam is the worse religion? That would be inconsistent for sure. So give me your examples.

Alan Yeap said that May 13 occurred in 1969 and not in 1957. I don’t know why Alan Yeap is telling me something that I already know. The whole of Malaysia knows it was in 1969. After all, I am not only a student of history but I have written many articles about May 13. Hence I know that May 13 was in 1969 and not in 1957. And I never said that May 13 was in 1957. So I do not know what gave Alan Yeap the impression that I said it was in 1957 and not in 1969.

As for the second part of Alan Yeap’s comment, I said something else and he responded with something totally unrelated to what I said. What has what he said got to do with what I said?

Alan Yeap challenged Khairy Jamaluddin to sue The Edge. Why are the Pakatan Rakyat supporters asking this person and that person to sue this, that or the other? You scream about freedom of speech and how Barisan Nasional and the government do not respect freedom of speech. And then you ask people to sue other people to stifle freedom of speech.

You have to decide whether you do want freedom of speech or not. You can’t keep asking people to sue other people every time they give their opinion. Now, if they slander you that is another thing. If they say you cheated your company or you had an affair with your secretary and this is not true then you have every right to sue them. But you can’t sue people for expressing their opinion.

I don’t think that giving out ang paus in white envelopes during Chinese New Year is bad luck or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. That is my opinion. But do you sue me just because that is my opinion and because I expressed my opinion?

I can even say that I think you are silly for believing in such things but that is still not grounds to sue me. What if I were to say that I do not believe that God exists and I am of the opinion that all those people who believe in such nonsense are silly people? Can you sue me for that?

Slander is one thing. That hurts you and you can sue me if I lied. But my opinion is my opinion and you can’t sue me for that. Can I sue you because you said that all those who do not accept Christ will never go to heaven and only those who accept Christ will be saved and will get to see heaven? You have just insinuated that I will be going to hell and you have hurt my feelings. But is that grounds enough for me to sue you?

You cannot scream about wanting freedom of speech/opinion/expression and at the same time threaten to sue everyone when they express any opinion that differ from yours. And to sue someone you must have locus standi and whatever was said must have hurt you personally. This has nothing to do with whether you support Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional.

Can you sue me if I were to say that the Japanese committed a lot of atrocities in Nanjing during WWII? First of all, it was true. Secondly, are you Japanese and are you personally hurt by my statement? Has your reputation suffered or did you suffer financial loss because of my statement regarding the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing?

So you see, you must suffer some loss of reputation or have suffered a financial loss by what I said about you. But if what I said has nothing to do with you but was about someone else and you suffered nothing from what I said how could you sue me? What is your locus standi? And what has the political party you support or do not support got to do with this?

Finally, I do not know how long Alan Yeap has been living in Taiwan but it must have been for quite some time since he does not know what Article 153 is. Or is Alan Yeap Taiwanese rather than Malaysian and that is why he does not know what Article 153 is?

Anyway, my response was specifically regarding those people who say that Khairy should not talk about May 13 since it happened in 1969 and he was not born yet then (he was born in 1976). In that case can I comment about things that happened during WWII since I was born in 1950? And what about those who were born after Merdeka in 1957 and yet make comments about Article 153? Do they have a right to talk about a matter that happened before they were born?

Those are the issues. The first issue is about suing someone who gives his or her opinion and the second issue is about telling someone not to comment about something that happened before he or she was born. Tony Pua was born in 1972 and Hannah Yeoh in 1979. Going by the standards we apply for Khairy, Tony and Hannah also have to stop talking about a lot of things. After all, all these things they are talking about happened before they were born.

But then this ‘don’t talk about something that happened before you were born’ is only a rule for Umno people and does not apply to opposition people. And when I point this out they respond with: do you no longer support the opposition? What shallow thinking and narrow-minded mentality?

Wrong is wrong and should not be only wrong for those who are pro-government but right for those who are anti-government. Why can’t these people understand something so simple and so basic?