27/07/2026
致李健聪的一封信，别再这种时间来搞乱
八打灵再也国会议员李健聪针对廖顺喜出席一场公青团公开活动，以及与首相拿督斯里安华的合照，公开提出质疑，并要求公正党中央作出解释。
身为国会议员，监督执政党、提出质询，是职责所在，这一点相信没有人会反对。
然而，任何监督，都应该建立在事实与证据之上，而不是建立在猜测、印象，甚至标签之上。
因此，我想请教李健聪议员几个问题。
在公开发言之前，您是否已经确认廖顺喜先生是公正党党员？
您是否已经向主办单位了解，当天属于公开活动，现场除了党员之外，还有来自多个社团、企业界人士及受邀嘉宾，约三千多人共同出席？
您是否知道，现场提供公青团制服供参与者穿着，并不代表穿上制服的人就是党员，更不代表拥有任何党职？
更重要的是，公正党总秘书随后已经公开说明，廖顺喜并非公正党党员，也没有申请加入公正党。
既然事实已经如此清楚，为何社会讨论仍然围绕着一张照片不断延伸各种政治想象？
一张合照，能够证明什么？
它能证明党员身份吗？
能证明政治关系吗？
还是能够证明任何违法行为？
如果答案都是否定的，那么，仅凭一张照片便不断推演各种政治结论，是否符合一名国会议员应有的严谨态度？
更令人遗憾的是，每当社会讨论廖顺喜时，总有人不断重复他过去曾面对的案件，却选择忽略另一项同样重要的事实相关案件早已获得上诉庭依法裁定无罪释放（Acquitted）。
法治社会最基本的原则，就是尊重法院的最终判决。
如果一个已经获得法院无罪裁定的人，依然永远被贴上过去的标签，不断接受舆论审判，那么司法制度的意义又何在？
公众人物当然可以接受监督。
但监督，不应建立在印象之上；批评，不应脱离事实；政治，更不能凌驾于法治之上。
如果有人认为一个人违法，应提出证据。
如果有人认为一个人加入某个政党，应提出事实依据。
如果有人认为一个人获得特殊待遇，更应拿出能够令人信服的证据。
而不是让一张照片，承担所有未经证实的推论。
真正值得人民关注的，是国家的发展、经济、民生，以及人民每天面对的现实问题，而不是不断放大一张公开活动中的合照，将其演变成一场舆论风暴。
民主社会允许质疑，也欢迎监督。
但民主更需要事实，法治更需要证据。
希望所有公共人物，无论朝野，在发表任何指控之前，都能够秉持同样的标准
事实先于立场，证据先于指控，法治高于标签。
因为只有如此，公共讨论才能真正回归理性，而不是陷入无止境的政治操作。
站在这个时间点提出这样的问题或者未经验证的质疑，其实你是在捞政治成本还是哗然取众
一位关心公共讨论应回归事实的公民
#事实胜于政治
#证据先于指控
#法治高于标签
#让公共讨论回归事实
An Open Letter to YB Lee Chean Chung: Please Do Not Turn This Into Political Noise at Such a Critical Time
YB Lee Chean Chung,
You recently questioned the attendance of Mr. Nicky Liow at a public AMK (Angkatan Muda Keadilan) event and his photograph with Prime Minister YAB Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and publicly called on Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) to provide an explanation.
As a Member of Parliament, it is your responsibility to scrutinize the ruling party and raise questions. No one would dispute that.
However, any form of public scrutiny should be based on facts and evidence—not on assumptions, impressions, or labels.
Therefore, I would like to ask you a few questions.
Before making your public statements, did you first verify whether Mr. Nicky Liow is actually a member of PKR?
Did you confirm with the event organizers that it was a public event attended by approximately 3,000 people, including representatives from various associations, members of the business community, invited guests, and not just party members?
Were you aware that AMK shirts were made available for attendees to wear, and that wearing such a shirt neither makes someone a party member nor indicates that they hold any position within the party?
More importantly, PKR's Secretary-General has since publicly clarified that Mr. Nicky Liow is not a PKR member and has never applied to join the party.
Now that these facts have been made clear, why does the public discussion continue to revolve around a single photograph, giving rise to endless political speculation?
What exactly does one photograph prove?
Does it prove party membership?
Does it prove a political relationship?
Does it prove any unlawful conduct?
If the answer to all of these questions is no, then is it appropriate for a Member of Parliament to draw far-reaching political conclusions based solely on a photograph?
What is even more disappointing is that whenever Mr. Nicky Liow's name is mentioned, some people repeatedly bring up past legal cases while conveniently ignoring another equally important fact—that the relevant case was ultimately decided by the Court of Appeal, which acquitted him.
The foundation of the rule of law is respect for the final judgment of the courts.
If someone who has been acquitted by the judiciary continues to be permanently defined by old allegations and subjected to endless public condemnation, then what purpose does our justice system serve?
Public figures should indeed be open to scrutiny.
But scrutiny must be grounded in facts.
Criticism must not ignore evidence.
Politics must never be placed above the rule of law.
If anyone believes a person has broken the law, present the evidence.
If anyone claims that a person has joined a political party, provide the facts.
If anyone alleges that a person has received special treatment, then produce convincing proof.
Do not expect a single photograph to bear the weight of countless unverified assumptions.
What Malaysians truly deserve is meaningful discussion about national development, economic growth, the cost of living, and the real challenges people face every day—not an endless political storm created from a photograph taken at a public event.
A democratic society welcomes scrutiny and encourages questions.
But democracy also demands facts, and the rule of law demands evidence.
I sincerely hope that all public figures—whether from the government or the opposition—will uphold the same standard before making accusations:
Facts before political positions.
Evidence before accusations.
The rule of law above labels.
At this particular moment, raising unverified allegations or speculative questions serves only one purpose: Are you genuinely seeking the truth, or are you simply seeking political mileage and public attention?
Only by adhering to facts, evidence, and due process can our public discourse remain rational instead of descending into endless political theatrics.
A Citizen Who Believes Public Debate Should Be Guided by Facts
