The red rally.
If we follow bersih’s bizarre organizer’s method of calculation, one million Malaysians have gone down the streets for the yellow and red shirts. (500k each.) That’s really substantial.
The video attached probably show more Reds than other yellow videos we see.
As this is the first red showdown, despite some certain skirmishes with the police the red’s rally generally went to town peacefully.
Despite the best spin by the left media, the skirmishes are much lesser and milder than compared to previous bersih’s rallies skirmishes. (There were rampage on public assets).
For this I applaud the Reds and police for ensuring orderly conduct despite the extreme media coverage depicting the organizers as bent on creating a riot.
But in all this I find a lot of funny stuff. The Reds just copied what the yellow did during the demonstration and the yellow just reiterated whatever the Reds complained about the yellows. Funny really.
Among the funnies are:
1. When police take action against you its police brutality. But when persons you don’t like are subject to police’s action, such persons are called hooligans and police action is justified.
2. With organization you like, they cannot be responsible for everyone’s action. The organizer tried their best and they cannot be responsible. But when you don’t like, the organizer must be responsible for all.
3. When you support them, rubbish is unavoidable and local authority is to clean it themselves. When you disagree you call on them being dirty and must be responsible for cleaning up.
4. When you’re involved, you claim freedom of movement to go anywhere for your demonstration. It’s wrong for police to stop you. It’s unconstitutional and an injustice. When you don’t like them, you ask for the police to or agree that the police protect the area. It’s right for example for police to cordon petaling street and not allow the Reds to enter.
5. When you’re involved it’s free speech and expression. One can say and do anything during demonstration. Irrespective it’s rude foul or an incitement. But if you don’t like it, you claim it incitement racism foul and rude.
6. If you’re in it, business affected is fine. But when you’re not you complain about business being affected.
7. When you’re in it, it’s always peaceful. Things which you disagree you disclaim it and claim it’s done by agent provocateur not condone by you. But when you’re not, no such things as agent provocateur. Be accountable for it.
8. When you’re in it, you never ask whether the area you demonstrate affect certain ethnic groups. But when you don’t you question why it affects certain ethnicity.
9. When you’re in it, you aggravate the numbers. Even though the max possible in the area is around tens of thousands you claim hundreds of thousands and it’s a credible number. But when you’re not, even with similar or better numbers you claim it must be less than ten thousand.
10. When you’re involved, any comment and criticism against your movement you condemn as fear mongering. When you don’t like them you’re the fear mongerer.
11. When you’re involved, peaceful assembly act and other laws need not be complied with. You condemned these laws and claim them unconstitutional. When you’re not involved, you question why the other group don’t have to comply with these laws.
Duh?!! Funny really.
But what I find most funny is Lim Kit Siang. He was like panic strickened going around town to stop the Reds demonstrations with various counter movements.
Suddenly racial incitement is wrong. Was he not the one who were against racial incitement be deemed not seditious and not illegal because it’s part of free speech? Incitement against Chinese is seditious but against Malay and Islam is freedom of speech ke?
But what came out as the worse is the so call civil societies. The bar council and its affiliates in particular have been so hypocritical and selective. The bar drafted (or rather was involved in drafting) laws for freedom of speech to include freedom to incite be it racial or religious.
The civil society calls for freedom of movement to demonstrate anywhere. When they like the organization they make various public statements to protect these rights and even provide lawyers to protect anyone against any actions by police whether police is justified or otherwise.
In the Petaling Street incidence, there was not even a word to condemn the police for denying the right to demonstrate anywhere. What more to provide any free legal service to those affected by police actions. Suddenly police action is justified.
The bar and civil societies are just too much with their hypocrisies. They are simply crap in their selectivity.
Kononnya their motto is to do things without fear or favour. Who are they favoring and fear for? The bar council is part of the mess we see now in our society.