I refer to R Sharif's letter

regarding the raid o­n Malaysiakini.com. While I would applaud his attempt to provide a viewpoint from the perspective of the police, I cannot agree with the contents of the letter.

Firstly, I would like to make my stand clear o­n this matter. I believe that the raid was wrong and misguided. To me, the letter

from Petrof was the expression of an individual's opinion o­n a certain issue and nothing more. It was meant to promote free intellectual discussion o­n the subject matter, which until Umno Youth's police report, it actually did.

The free flow of ideas and opinion is or should be the aspiration of any modern nation, and Malaysia, or the Malaysian society, should not shy away from this given the fact that Vision 2020 is a much repeated goal of the government. We cannot even hope to say truthfully that we are a developed society if we cannot tolerate a view that is different and maybe even controversial. Let's not even talk about aspiring to be a developed nation.

Against this backdrop, let's have a look at the law. From what I can understand of the law or laws passed by men to govern society, o­ne primary purpose is to maintain order and the other is to promote the development of society as a whole.

R Sharif has rightly pointed out the relevant provision of the law o­n sedition which purportedly justifies the actions of the police.

However, if we apply R Sharif's method of interpretation to, say, the threat to burn down the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall or to bathe the keris in non-Malay blood, or the call to close all Chinese schools, wouldn't that be sedition as well in the sense of "promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races and classes of Malaysians"?

I certainly do not agree that the police have been very efficient in their pursuit of the truth. I believe the more appropriate word is biased.

Justice cannot live in a vacuum and be separated from freedom and liberty. What we have seen here from Umno Youth and the police is the attempt to suppress freedom of speech (which by the way, is a constitutional guarantee) by perverting the law o­n sedition.

It is true that non-censorship of the Internet cannot be absolute, but I believe the expression of a personal opinion of a

Malaysian who obviously cares and the publishing of that opinion are miles or maybe even a universe away from child pornography. The law of sedition was never intended to strangle free speech, nor was it intended to be a tool of oppression.

When we try to justify an unjustifiable act, any attempt to apply logic to the situation normally ends up in failure.

Lastly, kudos to editor-in-chief Steven Gan and the rest of the Malaysiakini.com people for sticking to their principles. We need more people like you around.