Can Dapsters fit the definition for ‘terrorist’?

December 5, 2015 at 2:38 am 5 comments

“Whose idea was it to have this National Security Council law?”, asks Hannah Yeoh.

Well, whoever whose brainchild it was, the National Security Council Act nonetheless omitted to define what/who is a ‘terrorist’.

Under the NSC Act, definitions are provided for the following terms:

  • angkatan tentera
  • benda berbahaya
  • entiti kerajaan
  • kawasan keselamatan
  • ketua pengarah
  • majlis
  • pasukan keselamatan
  • pengarah operasi
  • pengerusi
  • perisytiharan

Does a Dapster fall under the definition of ‘terrorist’ because he is armed and dangerous — i.e. with cyber weapons to carry out character assassination, blood libel and mass destruction of reputation.

The ammunition used by Dapsters is bohong and fitnah which are capable of causing serious damage (chaos, mayhem, riots) and severe injury to the standing of public institutions and integrity of authority figures.

Dapsters throw grenades/bombs or detonate explosives to destroy trust and goodwill in the community. They also spread extremist ideologies that breed extremism.

They are a threat to public order and a menace to the safety of our society.

In short, they terrorize the population.

Ambiga with Hannah Yeoh


Entry filed under: Evangelista Bintang Tiga. Tags: .

Congratulations Isma, you’ve arrived! Did MPs from MCA vote for national security bill?

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Spectre  |  December 5, 2015 at 10:08 am

    While the Speaker is trash talking her em….namesake is here again doing the same thing. Did you guys notice that commentator ?

    Do they fit the definition for terrorist ? No. They fit the definition for charlatan. Remember City Harvest ? Harvesting the hard earned income of the ignorant, the gullible and so on.

    You have got it all wrong lady. These people are not terrorists. They preach love remember ? Love = money.

  • 2. mfma  |  December 5, 2015 at 11:01 am

    When reading through the bill, I immediately remember Lahad Datu, MH370, MH17 and China’s Navy entering our EEZ (80 nautical miles from Sarawak)

    The initial phase of gomen response at Lahad Datu and MH370 were all over the place. Who was responsible? Police? soldier? Home Ministry? Transport Minister etc. NSC will streamline the response going forward.

    Having said that I do agree with some of opposition concern because it seems like the power is too broad and too open to abuse.

    I am not worry much about Najib yet, but it sure gives me chill at the thought of DAP wielding such power.

    Hopefully next year Parliament can moderate the bill.

  • 3. anonymous  |  December 5, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    I’m pretty much unaware of this bill until it was passed. Either it was just ignorant me or the mass media, pro government and pro opposition alike didn’t focus on it before it was passed.

    It seems like something to do with the Sabah and South Philippines situation though, so it must have been planned for some time, if that’s the case. One politician even referred to the Sabah intrusion as an ‘old story’, I believe?

    Hopefully it’s needed to deal with just that. Recent world news scare me.

  • 4. SeymourTeets  |  December 5, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Where can i get the English version?

    • 5. Helen Ang  |  December 5, 2015 at 2:57 pm

      PDF English version


Dijemput memberi komen anda

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Recent Posts

My blog, my like

Helen Ang



  • 7,883,473 hits


December 2015
« Nov   Jan »

%d bloggers like this: