The right of reply

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Rafizi’s abuse of power


I don’t know the merits of this Deepak story. He is of shady character and whatever he says cannot be relied on unless corroborated. I think it’s already descending to gutter politics.

But one statement by rafizi is wrong and shows abuse of power. It’s about the state government stopping the land deal. However one despises the deal between raja ropiah Deepak and boustead, you cannot use government machinery for unrelated event. This is a land matter and must stick to land procedural issues. You cannot stall it based on unrelated matters which have yet to be decided by courts. Rafizi only had information from a third party and this does not amount to him having the full facts without giving opportunity of others to defend one self. If it is wrong, it must be determined by a judicious authority. It cannot be based on an arbitrary decision by one person ie rafizi.

To set aside a land deal based on unrelated event is setting a wrong precedent. It’s clearly an abuse of power.

So rafizi, you can expose as much as you like on this despicable Deepak but you can’t use government machinery to achieve your political goal. You can set aside land transaction based on land transaction procedure. Eg not complying with local plans or land use requirements. But to threaten to stop the deal based on an arbitrary unrelated view is clearly an abuse of power.


2 thoughts on “Rafizi’s abuse of power

  1. Rafizi is a politician. I have been following his video speches and found that he was not always spot-on in his so-called expose’. Generally most politicians do not care so much about “proper or correct” procedures or the quality of their information sources. The determining factor for them to bring up any issues is whether the issues will serve their political objectives. Un-named third party sources (hearsays) are good enough for them as long as the good names of their targets are tainted or put in doubt to the public eye. The sufferings of the targets, who could be innocent, are of secondary considerations – if at all to be considered. Procedures are also secondary as long as they get their ways even to the extent of having to resort to using government’s machinery under their control. This can cut both ways for politicians on both sides of the divide. The public will have to rely on and apply its own intellectual knowledge exposure more rationally – what other choice do we have? Pity those less informed members of the public.

    • Agree. I’m ok with any expose. But it has to have limits and decorum. You can’t defame a person. If you expose a person you must be sure. You can’t give flimsy excuse you want authority to investigate. That’s unacceptable. Then you should not in exposing a person project an abuse of power ie you expose for the sake of justice and fairness but don’t try to influence the judge or in this case threaten to unjustifiably use government machinery which rafizi himself despise if UMNO does this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s