Ceramah PAN: Kit Siang & Guan Eng Akan Masuk Islam?

21 03 2017

I am not sure who is the speaker but he looks like Wan Ji and sounds like him too.

What will DAP say about this?





Is Muhyiddin Racist?

15 09 2014

Please watch the video of Tan Sri Muhyiddin’s speech on Article 10 of the Federal Constitution : “Muhyiddin: Tiada Pihak Boleh Persoalkan Pembentukan Negara Malaysia (Video)”.

The opposition parties are very busy complaining about everything that they can think of instead of working to solve the problems in Selangor, Penang and Kelantan.

Now they and some human rights activists are fighting for a total freedom of speech because they want to be free to say everything they wish, including matters related to sensitive issues such as the Federal Constitution, the Royal Institution and others.

Like when Lim Kit Siang humiliate the Khutbah Jumaat that reminded the Muslims of the Surah Al-Baqarah: verse 120.

Insider 9

Tony Pua also humiliated JAKIM’s Khutbah Jumaat (about Valentine’s day.)

Hannah Yeoh went against the Sultan of Selangor’s decree on Allah issue as well as Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988,  and Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

I wonder if Khalid Ibrahim would obey Hannah Yeoh.

PAS’s Wan Ji made lots of rude statements against the teaching of Islam, Islamic authorities and the Royal Institution.

Wanji 1

And lots of human rights activists do not respect the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

Insider 10

They use Article 10 of the Federal Constitution as the reason why they are free to say anything they wish; claiming that Article 10 Clause 1 (a) granted them total freedom of speech’.

Article 10 Clause 1 (a) says:

“every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”

Is it true that the Article 10 of the Federal Constitution gives us a total freedom of speech?

No, because Article 10 of the Federal Constitution says:

“10. (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)—
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;”

That means Article 10 (1) of the Federal Constitution is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4).

And Clause 2 (a) of the Article 10 says:

“Parliament may by law impose— on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;”

So, the oppositions and human rights activists who support them, only use Article 10 (1) (a) and purposely ignore Article 10 (1) which says that the article is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4).

That means, they just skipped the part of the article that says there are restrictions to freedom of speech.

That is wrong because we cannot use only a part of an article of the Federal Constitution and skip the rest of the article as we wish. 

They did the same when they refer to Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution by purposely leaving the part saying, “subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”.

Anyway, freedom of speech that they are fighting for is only a total freedom for them to say what ever they want but not for others.

Does Anwar respect freedom of speech if he wanted to sue the reporter who asked him a question that he is not happy with?

Another example is the issue between the Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng and PAS’s Nasruddin Hassan Tantawi.

Is freedom of speech respected by people who always talk about freedom of speech in the above examples?

I am tired of the opposition’s tactics to destroy the stability of our country with the help of those human rights activists who support them.

They must look at themselves before telling others what to do.

They are worse than the pot calling the kettle black.








%d bloggers like this: