JUST READ!

Posted: 11 Jul 2013 09:49 PM PDT

She didn't know what she was saying the other day. Her 'indecent dress' remarks irked many, including Pakatan MPs, NGOs and women's groups.

They are seeing red over Siti Zailah Mohd Yusoff's (PAS-Rantau Panjang) statement that women could prevent sexual crimes by not wearing shorts and skimpy dress. She also earned nationwide ire when she asked the government to consider enacting laws to prevent women from wearing 'indecent' clothing.

In voicing their disapproval over Siti Zailah's comments in Parliament on Wednesday, women's groups and lawmakers said such remarks were insulting, distasteful and seemingly gave excuses for people to commit sexual crimes against women.

Sisters in Islam (advocacy, legal service and public education unit) manager Suri Kempe said the fact that such comments were repeatedly made indicated there had been no shift in the mindset when it came to violence against women.
"Women do not need to be told, commanded or persecuted for the clothes they wear.
"What we need is for men to be taught and told not to violate women, regardless of the circumstances.
"Let's teach our men to be responsible for their behaviour instead of blaming victims of violence for the abuse they have endured."
Wanita DAP national secretary Teo Nie Ching said the remarks were insulting to both sexes.
"It is unfair to put the blame on the rape victim instead of the rapist. Victims need protection, not insults.
"This shouldn't be the way. We should be discussing ways to strengthen punishment to instil fear in potential rapists or about setting up agencies to help victims, not give excuses for the crime."
Former deputy women, family and community development minister Datuk Heng Seai Kie said it was wrong to force one's values on others. "Decency is subjective to a person's culture, practices and upbringing. It is not right to force one's values and beliefs on another individual."
She said Siti Zailah's remarks would also send the wrong message to men. "Wearing skimpy clothes is not a reason to commit sexual crimes. Even if a man is trapped in a room with a naked woman, this does not give him an excuse to rape or sexually assault her."
Wanita MIC chief Datin Paduka Komala Krishnamoorthy said accusing women of encouraging sexual crimes by their attire was ridiculous. "If dressing was such a crime magnet, then what about the children and elderly women who also fall victim?"

Netizens have also express outrage over Siti Zailah, who is also PAS' Muslimat chief. Here are some of their tweets:

@cyfu dubbed the idea "1920s thinking in 2013".

DAP's Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching chipped in, saying: "The idea to use dress code to solve rape not only insults women but insults men as well. #NoExcuseForRape"

Child welfare activist Dr Hartini Zainuddin (@tiniz) voiced disbelief, saying: "Dress code to prevent rape? What planet are we on?"

@tiffanyoon pointed out that "some people get turned on by Kiki Lala (a children's clothing label)".

Lawyer Michelle Yesudas (@chelle_yesudas) tweeted: "Sexual crimes/harassment come from the way we perceive power relationships between sexes. If only a dress code could change it."

@syazwanzainal tweeted it was not about telling women how to dress, and that sex offenders should instead be told "not to rape".

@mymiszelle pointed out a loophole: "Creating a #DressCode for women in Malaysia won't prevent sexual crimes & harassment. And will it be a crime if women don't adhere?

Perpetrators can say: 'Oh, she wasn't in the #DressCode specified. Not my fault. Hers.' #loophole Back to blaming women."

@Guru_Nathan decried the suggestion as "nonsense" and tweeted: "Dressing is not the cause of rape. Stupidity and low moral is".

Its logic was also questioned by @itsJa5on who tweeted: "The way a woman dresses is no justification for sexual crimes. You don't blame a wealthy person for getting robbed now do you?"

@LumosNY rubbished the idea, and joked: "She needs to suggest allowance for us girls then so we can shop for the right clothes according to #dresscode"

Sedition Act: Others should shut up!

Posted: 11 Jul 2013 01:58 AM PDT

Now that almost everyone wanna have a say in the Sedition Act 1948 issue, I guess its time for 'non-PM and non-Home Minister' and other big mouths to stop making contemplating statements about it.

Apart from Najib Tun Razak and Zahid Hamid, others should shut up and attend to their respective portfolio, whether you are a former de facto Law Minister, former Home Minister, former this and that... whatever.

However, only statesman Tun Dr Mahathir 'is allowed' to give comments as a former prime minister.

A law cannot be simply drafted or abolished following demands from certain quarters, including the opposition, former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said.
In fact, he said a study must be carried out to collect input and opinions from various quarters, or from other countries which had enforced or abolished such an Act, as well its impacts.
"If we bow to the demands of the opposition, there will be no law. Right now, they are demanding to have a rule of law, but if there's no law, how can we have a rule of law," he said.
He was speaking in response to the demands made by certain quarters to abolish the Sedition Act 1948.
Mahathir said if the Act were to be abolished, the people would be free to do anything or insult anybody.
"We used to have a courteous society where we don't easily insult people, but now, we have people easily bad-mouthing us, insulting our religion and our Prophet, but we can do nothing about it.
"The problem in not the law, but the people who are abusing the law," he added.

I wonder why people like Tourism Minister Nazri Aziz has been so nosy of late in reiterating what Najib had said last year about the plan to repeal the Sedition Act. He should concentrate more on how to lure tourists to the country and enhance our tourism products.

Or Tourism Ministry not providing him with good newspaper headlines? Even his motive to support the move can be put to question - doing it for the opposition?

So far, he is the only BN minister so insistence of having the Act repealed.

Najib should take into consideration many factors before concluding that the Act needs to be abolished. We cannot let Malaysia to become a 'country without law'. We had let go of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and Emergency Ordinance (EO), much to the delight of the opposition, NGOs and human right groups.

A new bill to replace the EO has yet to be finalised, and it has created a lot of unwanted problems, especially to the police in enforcing the law and order. If Sedition Act must be abolished, we need the replacement bill to come into force first, right?

And why is there a need to repeal the Sedition Act? Is it to replace the 'draconian law' with a new, flexible law or to amend its contents? If we just want popularity by repealing such a law, we better make Malaysia a 'cowboy nation'.

It looks like we have been submitting more to the opposition demands than the opposition compromising on our calls for them to stop streets demo and rallies. They even mocked at Barisan Nasional for easily getting threatened and intimidated by such actions.

Why must we submit to them again? The Sedition Act is among our last 'line of defense' in ensuring peace, stability and progress of a nation plagued with so much religion and racial sentiments, especially of late.

The Sedition Act must stay!

PETALING JAYA: Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948 would lead to widespread abuse of freedom of speech.
"Sedition has been widespread ever since we abolished the ISA (Internal Security Act). If you don't want law and a life without law,
there will be a lot of problems. Everybody will take advantage of it (freedom from conviction)," Mahathir told reporters here.
"If it were me, I would want the law. That is why we have the (concept of) rule of law. If we abolish law, then there is no rule," he added.
Mahathir said the effect of repeal would lead to people "feeling free" and believing that "they can do whatever they want".
"From a civilised society with no usage of vulgar language, we can now even find people who insult the (Prophet Muhammad)," he said.
"In a civilised society, we need laws. The problem here is not that the laws are not good, but people misuse it," he added.
When pointed out that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak had made an announcement last July to repeal the Sedition Act, Mahathir said:
"That is the PM's opinion".
"I am of the opinion that if we amend the Act or law until it is ineffective, then there might as well be no law. We are free to do anything we want," he said.
Asked further if he supported the restoration of ISA, Mahathir said: "I did not abolish ISA, other people did it".
- See more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/07/08/dont-repeal-sedition-act-says-dr-mahathir/#sthash.0PmTQ1pd.dpuf

All quarters should defend the Sedition Act 1948 for it to remain in use to prevent disruption to public order and racial harmony, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim.
He said if this Act were to be abolished or replaced with another, there would be quarters who would touch on sensitive issues like the special rights of the Malays.
"The Sedition Act, if abolished, will receive the same fate as the Internal Security Act, whereby action could not be taken against many cases involving security due to the absence of the ISA now.
"Because of this, I feel the Sedition Act should not be abolished as it is an avenue to bring the offenders to book," he said when met in parliament building, here, today.
Shahidan, who is also Arau MP, also fully supported the statement by Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi that the Sedition Act not be abolished so that every Malaysian realised the government's seriousness in maintaining harmony in the country.
Ahmad Zahid had hit out at certain quarters who were urging for the Sedition Act to be abolished without thinking of the negative impact.
He said abolishing this Act would only result in four main matters that were enshrined in the Federal Constitution, namely the position of Islam as the country's official religion, the position of the Malay rulers, the position of Bahasa Melayu as the national language and the special rights of the Malays, to be questioned by certain quarters.

On July 7, Zahid said the abolition of the Sedition Act 1948 may lead to the dispute of four core aspects of the Federal Constitution.

PUTRAJAYA: The abolition of the Sedition Act 1948 may lead to the dispute of four core aspects enshrined in the Federal Constitution, said Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. According to Zahid, the four core aspects are the special rights of Malays, the status of Malay rulers, the status of Islam as the Federal religion and the status of Bahasa Melayu as the national language. The Home Minister said he wanted the Act retained so that these will not be questioned. "The Cabinet cannot decide to abolish (the Act) but (it can propose) to amend. "If the Sedition Act is abolished wholly, (people) will have the rights to touch on these four areas although these are enshrined in the Constitution. "I will not compromise if there are parties who want to touch on any of these four main aspects of the Constitution.

Those who chided at 'Umno's disunity' over the different opinion among Umno and BN lawmakers, must also shut up! The different in opinion did not reflect a row among Umno but rather a healthy polemic.

And any suggestion that the Sedition Act is there to protect Umno leaders from being charged, is rubbish and malodorous!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jom berjuang bersama rakan bloggers di Facebook!

Tunjukkan sokongan anda! Sila Like.

JUST READ!

JUST READ!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Eksklusif Oleh :

Lagi...Bongkar!