Sunday, March 17, 2019

Dap for Hanging, PAS for Hudud - same same

Malaysiakini - DAP can't have human rights and death penalty, says lawyer:

Lawyer Latheefa Koya today lashed out at DAP several leaders for caving in to calls to retain the death penalty.

Latheefa took DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng to task for issuing a statement today on his party's commitment to human rights, despite supporting the death penalty.

"Words are cheap! Human rights? Isn't it true that key DAP leaders did not support abolition of death penalty – the ultimate denial of human rights?

"As a result, the government did a U-turn on abolishing it after promising to do so in Oct 2018," the lawyer said on Twitter.

Latheefa also criticised Kepang assemblyperson Dr Ko Chung Sen for refuting claims that DAP walked back its opposition to capital punishment.

Dr Ko Chung Sen 

"Not surprised by this obscure DAP Adun's fanatical support for hanging people. I understand that DAP stalwarts/top leaders did not support abolition, leading to the U-turn by the government.

"They were worried about backlash from Chinese voters, who some claim support the death penalty," she tweeted.

KiniGuide: Death penalty: Six things you need to know

Ko argued yesterday that Pakatan Harapan did not renege on its pledge to abolish capital punishment because it was never listed in its election manifesto, which only promised to abolish the mandatory death penalty.

Legislative changes affecting 11 laws are expected to be passed by Parliament soon.

According to Latheefa, however, DAP should make their stand clear and not "hide" behind cabinet decisions.

"If DAP argues hanging people is a deterrent punishment – then they have no moral standing to object to PAS' hudud bill, because PAS relies on the same justification!" she wrote.


  1. Bait and switch. False advertising.

    True goal is: sedikit sedikit lama lama jadi swimming pool.

    Thanks to supporters who are coCKsukers, they will swallow anything.

  2. Actually they are all the same, MCA, MIC, UMNO, Bersatu etc. All support Death Penalty.

    So I think this is called UNANIMOUS. After extensive consultation.

    So why are we selectively comparing DAP with PAS?

    1. because DAP claims it's for human rights, and Lateefa Koya correctly said one can't be for human rights yet support the death penalty. In other words, DAP has been hypocritical in its human rights claims

  3. When I first read about the term "Liberal Fascist" I thought it was a contradictory term.

    But over time ,I realised there really are such people as Liberal Fascists. A small-l liberal being a supporter of left-leaning causes, and a Fascist one who narrow-mindedly imposes their views on others, and tramples on those who disagree.

  4. First we demand Harapan deliver manifesto promise, which is no mandatory death sentence, leave it to the judge to decide, just like doctor can decide if unborn foetus can be aborted with no second review, but now when Harapan deliver the manifesto promise they want the proverbial yard after getting the inch.


    sama sama menjejak mimpi sama sama menipu dan memungkiri

  6. Ask any political party, either from Harapan or opposition, they will all say they support Human Rights, it all depends on their definition. So we should not SELECTIVELY single out one party for criticism.


    1. the one shouting loudest on human rights should be asked to prove its credentials - Latheefa Koya is saying to that effect

    2. QUOTE
      Is Mahathir the only Pakatan leader with gonads?

      Answer: No....Guanee and DAP (and Lathefa too, Allah bless her ha..ha) also got gonads, big ones at that, not afraid to confront human rights and death penalty issue. Other Harapan leaders are same as opposition leaders, all quiet as tikus. Let DAP fight alone. Only whimper an answer when required.

    3. Wakakakakaka…

      "the one shouting loudest on human rights should be asked to prove its credentials"

      Dead RIGHT!

      Ask that opportunistic carpetbagger to prove herself FIRST lah.

      Didn't yr Lord said something like:

      “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

  7. Among the following, which LAWS whether Man-made or God/Gods Laws in this world currently practised by some countries are more barbaric, inhumane, against Human Rights, following Bronze and Middle Ages moralities, thinking etc?

    1. Death by Hanging
    2. Death by Firing Squad
    3. Death by Electrocution
    4. Death by Injection of Poison
    5. Death by Stoning
    6. Death by Throwing Off High Buildings
    7. Death by Beheading

    Can any country and society practising such death penalties be considered civilised and living in the 21st Century?

    And what are the excuses given For Not abolishing the Death Penalty onto another Human Being?

    1. It's Fair "An eye for an Eye" retribution?

    2. It's the Laws (Man-made or God/Gods) to frighten and prevent more people from committing crimes against Murder?, against Drugs? against carrying Weapons? against desertion in war? against spies and apostates? against blasphemy towards the State, Rulers or Religion? against breakdown of society values? against breakdown of God/Gods/Religious commands?

    3. Cost too much to house and feed those on death sentences?

    4. It is Human/God/Gods Justice and Commands?

    5. Not in the interest of the Majority wishes, protecting society and their beliefs and values?

    Isn't it clear that those who wishes and commit to take away another person's life intentionally in crimes or using whatever Laws allowed are themselves behaving like animals, Barbarians, Terrorists?

    What is so wrong to abolish Death Penalties and replace it with Life Sentences with No Parole in Jails and secluded from society and being housed, clothed and Fed for the rest of their life?

  8. I love this New Malaysia. Under the old one this debate would never have seen the light of day.

    DAP makes a public stand and has the gonads to defend it.
    Guanee says...Bring It On...!

    People who say that the most fundamental human right is the Right to Life should clarify if this right extends to humans whose right to life has been taken away (ie murdered). Or do murdered people immediately lose this right the moment their pulse stops?

    They should also clarify if the right to life covers unborn foetuses who are aborted, because a single person (ie the doctor) decides that the mother's life is in danger (which may or may not be true, we know many abortions are conducted simply because the baby is not wanted). If we happily give this power to decide life and death to a single person (ie the doctor), why can't we let a judge make life and death decisions for a criminal? Are doctors more qualified than judges?

  9. To those who argue that the judge may make a mistake and sentence someone to an irreversible death, fair point, that's why we need to take away the mandatory requirement, so if there is doubt, any doubt whatsoever, the judge must err on the safe side.

    But in the case of the terrorist who has killed 50 people in Christchurch, is there any doubt? He captured it on live stream himself.


    The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted as UN General Assembly resolution 217 A is still the modern era, internationally accepted standard on Human rights.

    Interestingly , it is silent on the subject of Capital Punishment.

    Article 5. states No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    There is no consensus that Capital Punishment is that. It is up to each nation and society to determine its stand.

    The US Constitution has an almost identical clause prohibiting cruel, inhumane punishments , but successive US Supreme Court rulings have refused to define Capital Punishment as such.

    To me, "the punishment shall fit the crime".

    So , you don't chop off a persons fingers for stealing a pack of biscuits, or jail a person for 10 years for a non-violent social media post that Muslims may take offence.

    A person who intentionally slaughtered 50 innocent people , or planned then raped and killed a defenceless woman, facing the death penalty
    matches the crime, as far as I am concerned.

    Does the DAP not supporting the abolition of the Death Penalty make it a hypocrisy against its support for Human Rights ?