You can’t fight City Hall

By MT Webmaster Last updated Dec 27, 2013

I fear that DAP is soon going to learn what ‘you can’t fight City Hall’ means. DAP can rant and rave and allege that it is being persecuted and is being subjected to unfair treatment. Nevertheless, the RoS can just go ahead and deregister the party unless DAP complies with the rules.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There is a saying in the west: you can’t fight City Hall. Basically, this means it is not easy to fight the government. There is one way you can fight the government, though, and this would be to fight it in the court of public opinion. Then, if the government feels pressured enough (because of adverse public opinion), it may back down and admit defeat.

Take the issue of sedition as one example. This law is very hazy as to what tantamount to sedition. Sedition can be interpreted as something you do, say or publish that may (or may not) infuriate someone (make that person angry with rage) and that that person may react (in a violent matter), which may result in someone being harmed or killed.

Now, first of all, someone somewhere (Minister, IGP, police officer, AG, etc.) is interpreting your action according to his/her own yardstick, standards and values (which may differ grossly from yours).

Then this same someone somewhere (after interpreting your actions according to his/her own yardstick, standards and values) is of the opinion that your action may anger someone else.

Then this same someone somewhere (with the opinion that your action may anger someone else) is of the opinion that the angered person may react in a violent manner.

Then this same someone somewhere (with the opinion that the angered person may react in a violent manner) is further of the opinion that the violence may escalate and involve many other people, which in the end would result in a riot or civil commotion and therefore cost the loss of limbs, lives and/or property.

And because of your action, the security of the nation and the safety of its citizens are put at risk. Hence your action is seditious. And hence, also, you must be punished since you have threatened the security of the nation and the safety of its citizens.

Can you see how many assumptions come into play here? Everything is based on assumption and we really do not know whether all this is going to happen or not. But it may (or may not) happen. Hence a crime has been committed.

Okay, so what is it that you did, say, or do that may result in an act of sedition? It can be anything. After all, it is all open to interpretation by that someone somewhere.

For example, I could have said that Santa Claus is a myth and that the Christians are stupid for adopting Santa as the icon for Christmas. In fact, Santa is a pre-Christianity pagan deity. Hence, Santa is as un-Christian as the belief in witches and warlocks.

That no doubt is the truth. Even the celebration of Christmas on 25th December is an old Roman (meaning pagan) holiday, the celebration of the sacrifice of the bull for the pagan god. Hence both the celebration of Christmas on 25th December and Santa are acts of heresy.

(England actually banned this practice about 400 years ago because it was considered heresy and those who closed their shop on 25th December were arrested. In short, Christmas, Santa, the holiday on 25th December, etc., were outlawed because they went against Christian beliefs).

Now, is what I just said seditious when I am merely quoting a historical fact? Well, if someone somewhere thinks that my act of quoting a historical fact can anger some Christians and that this may actually result in bloodshed, then what I just said is seditious. Hence I can be arrested and sent to jail for threatening the peace and security of the country.

You may not think what I said is seditious. I may not think what I said is seditious. But someone somewhere does. So that means it is seditious.

Can you now see why I say that the sedition law is very vague? Sedition is not about the truth. Sedition is about what someone interprets as seditious. And my act of pooh-poohing Santa becomes seditious if someone somewhere says it is seditious.

As I have said before: the law in an ass (meaning donkey). However, like it or not, the law is the law and we have no choice but to live by those laws unless one day Parliament amends or abolishes those laws.

The problem here is, Parliament makes those laws. The police enforce those laws. And the court is left the job of interpreting those laws. But does the court interpret those laws based on the letter of the law or the spirit of the law? Ah, this is where we need lawyers so that someone can represent us in court and convince the judge that we have not broken any laws based on the spirit of the law although just be looking at the letter of the law it appears like we have.

Hence the two Bloggers, Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee, are going to face a tough time in trying to convince the court that they are innocent of the crime of sedition regarding their bah kut teh stunt recently. Sedition is what I say is seditious and not what you intended.

In the case of DAP, however, an issue which is about to blow up big time, this matter is more clear-cut and less open to interpretation.

The Registrar of Societies (RoS) received nine complaint letters from the party’s members and grassroots leaders regarding its party elections in December last year and the re-election in September this year.

The RoS ruled that the December 2012 party election is flawed and instructed DAP to hold another election, which it did in September 2013. However, there were also flaws in the re-election as well.

The nine complaints received by the RoS that will make the September 2013 re-election invalid are:

1. Inadequate notice period (which should have been 10 weeks, as what Karpal Singh himself admitted).

2. The 851 delegates who were absent or not invited to the re-election when they were eligible to attend and vote at the meeting.

3. The 985 instead of 865 branches that were involved in the re-election.

4. The delegates’ list 15th December 2012 was not used, as it should have.

5. The proper notice of the meeting was not issued.

6. The election was not transparent.

7. Suspected elements of fraud.

8. Suspicious election results.

9. Manipulation of votes.

The RoS then asked DAP to submit its report, which it did. But then the report was so skimpy and lacked a satisfactory explanation regarding the nine complaints.

If the RoS is still not satisfied with DAP’s response it can demand that a new election (or re-re-election) be held and if DAP fails to comply then it runs the risk of being deregistered like what happened to Umno 25 years ago.

DAP is taking this matter to the court of public opinion. I doubt, however, that DAP can win this fight even if it wins in the court of public opinion because this is not like sedition which is open to interpretation.

You may think that the law is an ass but then the law is the law. And, as we say in the west: you can’t fight City Hall.

So good luck to DAP.