Ak57\’s Weblog

Thoughts and opinions on Malaysian news, its people and its culture

Archive for the ‘Nazri Nonsense’ Category

Devamany to be Whipped

Johari: Not fair for BN MP to blame govt for Indian woes

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 26, 2007): A backbencher was told today it was unfair for him to accuse the government of being unfair to the Indian community when it comes to sharing the country’s economic pie.

S.K. Devamany (BN-Cameron Highlands) had said, when posing a supplementary question, that despite measures promised by the government in its 2020 Vision policy and the Ninh Malaysia Plan, the reaction (Hindraf’s demonstration) yesterday showed that there is frustration in the lower rung of the Indian community which saw the involvement of youths and those from the middle income group.

“What are the actions taken to show proof of the government’s efforts in overcoming poverty and limited opportunities in the Indian community,” he asked Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum in Parliament.

Johari, replying in Parliament lobby, said it was not fair for Devamany to say the Indian community took to the streets on Sunday because the government was not being fair to them.

“How can he say that the demonstrations were due to Indians’ frustrations,” he said.

– quoted from an article published in the Sun on 26th November 2007 (link)

Despite representing himself poorly on Al-Jazeera on Sunday, it appears that Devamany made the quick decision to take off the ‘incompetence mask’ worn by most ministers and ask a perfectly reasonable question. Johari’s response indicates that he believes it to be work of the Opposition, or some other malarkey.

What is the result of Devamany questioning his masters’ (government) statement? A meeting with the Chief Whip, which turns out to be Najib. All these years I have been wondering whether we have a Chief Whip and who it is, and its Najib.

MIC MP to explain remarks to Najib

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 27, 2007): S.K. Devamany (BN-Cameron Highlands) will meet Barisan Nasional Chief Whip and Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Abdul Razak to explain his remarks on the Indian community’s woes in the Dewan Rakyat on Monday.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz said a report from the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) and the transcripts of the Hansard involving the MIC man showed that he broke ranks by questioning Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum.

He added that the MIC Central Working Committee member broke ranks with his BN peers by disputing the government’s figures on the number of Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force) demonstrators by saying that 50,000 participated in the rally.

Speaking to reporters in Parliament lobby today, Nazri said Devamany’s remarks went against the BN and MIC’s stand and position on the Hindraf demonstration.

He further criticised the first term MP for putting his party in a difficult position and urged him to stand by the majority of Indians who did not take part in the rally.

“We have an MIC MP refuting the party’s stand on several issues. It is serious,” said Nazri.

“If you want to be a fighter, then fight. But don’t put your party in a difficult position, “Nazri stressed.

Asked if the BN action against Devamany would make him a “hero” among the Indian community, Nazri said the BN could not be thinking in terms of one community.

“Should we encourage people to be popular among the community by breaking ranks? Or should we consider the welfare of the whole BN? Do we not take action against Robin Hood because he robbed the rich to give the poor, even though he broke the law?” he asked.

On Monday the backbencher in a supplementary question questioned the government’s policies on the Indians in the country.

He said that despite measures promised by the government in its 2020 Vision policy and the Ninth Malaysia Plan, the reaction on Sunday showed that there is frustration in the lower rung of the Indian community which saw the involvement of youths and those from the middle income group.

– quoted from an article published in the Sun on 27th November 2007 (link)

Nazri quickly pounced on the report of a disloyal lapdog (more news on this online, don’t have the link right now sorry). I wonder how Devamany will fare?

Getting Whipped

Advertisements

Written by ak57

November 28, 2007 at 7:01 am

Bar Council can comment but not take part

Bar Council ‘can take part in hearings on video clip’

KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council is welcome to take part in the royal commission hearings on the “Lingam” video clip, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said.

“We have no problems with it. They can come forward and give us their input.”

However, he said there was no possibility that Bar Council members could become royal commissioners themselves.

“There is no chance of that happening. How can they act fairly and be unbiased if they have already marched against the judiciary? They have already made their stand.

“Secondly, Lingam is a member of the Bar. Just like they don’t trust the police to investigate their own, how can the Bar be part of an investigation into one of their members?

“Justice must not merely be served, but must be seen to be served,” he said.

In the video clip, lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam is allegedly shown discussing judicial appointments with a senior judge.

The terms of reference for the royal commission of inquiry was up to the government, Nazri said.

“It is not for the Bar Council to decide, but the government.

“We won’t consult them and we will not give up our right to decide.”

Nazri said the terms had not been finalised.

“We (the cabinet) have given our opinions, but the prime minister has not finalised anything yet.”

He also said the government was happy with the present system of appointing judges and would not be changing it, despite calls to set up an independent judicial appointments and promotions commission.

(cut) …

In Putrajaya, sources said the Anti-Corruption Agency was still gathering evidence in relation to the video clip.

Investigations were still continuing and the case had not been wrapped up.

In Kuala Lumpur, a lawyer yesterday filed an application seeking a declaration that the resolutions made during the Bar Council extraordinary general meeting on Thursday relating to the “Lingam” video clip were null and void.

Lian Meng Wah, in his application filed at the High Court yesterday, said the Bar Council was not a member of the Malaysian Bar and does not have the power, authority or right to propose any motion under the Legal Profession Act 1976 to be considered at the EGM.

He further stated that the meeting was legal but the motions were illegal and unconstitutional.

Lian, a member of the Malaysian Bar, claimed the resolutions deemed illegal during the EGM include:

– The Malaysian Bar strongly deplores and condemns any member of the Bar who indulges in any conduct that may adversely affect the independence, integrity and credibility of the judiciary or the administration of justice;

– The Malaysian Bar strongly deplores and condemns the manipulation of the appointments and promotion process of judges by any party which interferes with and adversely affects the independence, integrity and credibility of the judiciary, and

– The Malaysian Bar welcomes the announcement of the prime minister to establish a royal commission of inquiry.

Lian sought an order to set aside the adoption of the Bar Council motion as a resolution of the Malaysian Bar and an injunction to refrain the Bar Council from publishing, implementing, acting upon, prosecuting or canvassing the resolutions of the EGM.

– quoted from an article published in NST on 24th November 2007 (link)

For once I agree with Nazri, to prevent a conflict of interest no Bar council member should be part of the Royal Commission. However, wasn’t Haidar also linked to VK Lingam yet given the OK to head the Panel? Sounds like selective judgement sir.

That part about the government being happy with the current system of appointing judges is also disheartening – now is your chance to get support for the government sir! Make a big show of improving the system, get more votes from the less-informed population who only read the media that you control.

Then again it may still happen, to distract from whatever happens at the HINDRAF gathering tomorrow.

It is worth noting that the ACA is reported to be still investigating matters related to the video clip, though that may just be their interview with VK Lingam and nothing more.

Finally out of all the members of the Bar Council, only one had a beef with the result of the meeting? I am not that familiar with legal parlance, but by filing the report and saying the stated resolutions were illegal, is Lian Meng Wah endorsing :

  • conduct that adversely affects the independence, integrity and credibility of the judiciary
  • the manipulation of the appointments and promotion process of judges

There is nothing to ‘implement, act upon or prosecute’ here, unless you count future condemnation of Bar Council members who practice corruption. What is he talking about? There must be more to this than what was printed.

Perhaps he is just a stickler to the rules (I’ll have to pick up a copy of the Legal Profession Act now sigh) and the Malaysian Bar might not have the right to officially give comment on the process of appointing/promoting judges or on the performance of its members.

Written by ak57

November 25, 2007 at 3:31 am

Nazri, In totidem verbis

It has taken some time but I finally sat down and read thru NST’s interview with Nazri Aziz on 28th October 2007 (link).

So lets go thru some of the Q&A’s, building up a list of Nazri logic statements (oh what a goldmine of comic material!). I will use the term ATN (According To Nazri) to refer to Nazri Logic (in italics) and Sidenotes for anything extra.

Q: Is there a crisis in the judiciary? Why is there a perception of there being one?

A: There isn’t a crisis. It’s a false allegation.

The perception has been created by some people. When I go back to my constituency, nobody talks about it.

When people do not go to the courts to settle their disputes, that’s when there’s a crisis. But I don’t see that.

The few people who are unhappy, make a lot of noise. It is reported, people read, and think there is a crisis.

Crisis means it involves the whole country but nobody talks about it. I even asked my fellow members of parliament (MP) but nobody talks about it. So, what crisis are we talking about?

The crisis is in the minds of those who created it.

ATN #1 Crisis is defined as ‘a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change.’

According to Nazri though, a crisis exists if:

  1. People do not go to courts to settle disputes
  2. People in his constituency talk about it when he is around
  3. It is reported in the media
  4. Members of Parliament talk about it

So following those conditions, lets see – there was a march, so item 1 is in. This video scandal has received significant coverage from the local media, so item 3 is in. Lim Kit Siang and Wan Azizah have brought up this judicial crisis, so item 4 is in. Therefore just because Nazri’s constituents do not talk about when he is around, there is no crisis?

Q: Some 1,000-2,000 lawyers were involved in the Bar Council walk. Are you saying that that many lawyers have been misled?

A: Only 1,000 went to the ground. There are 13,000 registered members of the Bar.

Q: You don’t think 1,000 is enough?

A: 1,000 of 13,000 — is that a majority? What’s the big deal?

In a democracy, the minority cannot control the majority. The minority does not speak for the majority.

Q: Aren’t the views of the minority also important?

A: But (they are) not (the) majority. If there are any decisions to be made, it has got to be the majority.

Q: So, if you wanted to be convinced (that there is a crisis), you would need 7,000 lawyers to walk?

A: Even then, it’s still not important to us, because the lawyers are not the only people who use the courts. The ordinary people use the court in their disputes.

It must be a majority of the population who feel that there is a crisis. Otherwise, there is nothing.

Q: Do you really want that many people marching in the streets?

A: No. You don’t have to have millions of people marching in the streets. Let the people decide, whether there is a crisis or not, through the legal means of sharing your dissent or anger — through the ballot box.

ATN #2 Any protest by a minority cannot be allowed to bring about change that also affects the majority. For that to happen the majority must also protest. According to Nazri in the matter of the judicial system, because everyone in the nation makes use of it the majority of the nation must protest.

Even if every single lawyer in the nation showed up at Nazri’s doorstep, it would mean nothing. The majority of the nation’s people must show up.

ATN #3 If any crisis occurs, citizens must wait for elections to occur – no form of protest will be acknowledged.

Q: You’re the de-facto Law Minister. And they are not asking for a sacking — they are asking for a more transparent appointment system.

A: We’re talking about the independence of the judiciary. I don’t speak for the judges. You want to clean up the judiciary, go and speak to the judge.

Sidenote #1 Nazri does indeed speak for at least one judge – Tun Ahmad Fairuz. Liar.

Q: But if we had a transparent system, perhaps all judicial appointees would be acceptable to the people.

A: But if you have a royal commission for the appointment and promotion of judges, you might not agree with the decision, too, because members of the royal commission are also human beings.

Tell me, who appoints the commission? The system is the same. The appointment of the commission will be made by the king, on the advice of the prime minister.

The commission would be there, but the Bar Council will not be happy, and then you’ll have another system (change).

Q: Can the commission be appointed by consensus or stakeholders?

A: Why stakeholders? Stakeholders are people too. Do you want to have an election?

You know what will happen — people will campaign to become members of the commission and then they’ll be compromised, because they want to be chosen by the people.

And then the judges will have to kow tim (settle) with them again — it’s the same thing.

Are we to change just because 1,000 lawyers are unhappy? The Constitution must be amended by two-thirds of MPs; and the two-thirds represent the majority of the people.

If we MPs are not convinced, how can we amend the Constitution? We can’t listen to the views of just 1,000 lawyers. Since when was the view of 1,000 lawyers more important than that of the 11 million who voted for us?

Lawyers are not the only stakeholders. It is also the people in the streets — they are the ones who go to court.

ATN #4 Human beings are fallible. According to Nazri, any body of individuals appointed by one person or persons(s) is therefore flawed and unreliable. Anyone who campaigns for an election is compromised (corrupt). The lack of transparency in the appointment of judges is therefore a non-issue.

You just can’t trust humans after all, including the de facto Law Minister – after all, he was elected wasn’t he?

ATN #5 Because members of a Royal Commission might make decisions that the people might not like, it doesn’t make sense to create one.

Indirectly Nazri is saying that the government would only want Commissions that make decisions that they know about before hand, good or bad. I’ll admit that is a good tactic for people in power to use, but just blurting it out in an interview is damnably foolish.

ATN #6 Since members of a Royal Commission are corrupt, judges (who are all corrupt apparently, ATN) will have to kow tim (settle) with them.

Settle? Sounds like bribery – is Nazri saying that he knows for a fact that all judges will bribe their way up the ladder? And that is ok? Read the next quote.

Q: You have said the government was happy with the current system of appointments. Why?

A: We found that the system works for us. We inherited this system (from the British), and for 50 years it has served us well. Something which has not brought us any problem, why should we change?

If we need to change this system, we would need a clear indication from the judiciary.

Even then, before you change you have to go and see the Malay rulers. Out of courtesy, you have to tell them.

Any slight change, we have to see the Malay rulers first. Once they agree, then you’ve got to get the agreement of the judges also, because this involves them.

I am only interested in no interference by the Executive. When I became minister in charge of the judiciary, I wanted to make sure that what happened 20 years ago should not happen now. So, please do not ask us to interfere with the judiciary.

ATN #7 The current corrupt system of judicial appointments is OK because it has been working for BN for the past 50 years.

Sidenote #2 The minister in charge of the judiciary cannot look into allegations of corruption? That that is considered interference? He did state that if people have a problem with the judiciary then they should go see the judges. So what is this minister in charge of? Sigh..time to get another Akta book for my collection 😉

Q: Is the tenure of the chief justice going to be extended?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know anything.

Sidenote #3 I know I’m being catty for saying this, but how nice of Nazri to say he does not know anything! At least he is aware at some level of his lack of knowledge.

Q: If you just take into account what is printed in the media and what comes out in the blogs, it would appear that there is a crisis in the judiciary.

A: To me, if there were no newspapers, if there were no blogs, then it’s just mere chit-chat in the coffeeshop. That’s all.

Q: Coffeeshop chit-chat is not important?

No. The people are important. This is a government elected by the people, for the people. So, people means the majority.

If we didn’t have blogs, if we didn’t have newspapers, who in this world would know about it? But because of technological developments, you are able to chit-chat (about it). It’s just chit-chat.

ATN #8 What is printed in the media is not important, because where the media not to exist then it is just coffeeshop chit-chat. Coffeeshop chit-chat is not important. Media content = chit-chat = not important.

This is amusing because ATN #1 states that people in Nazri’s constituency must talk about an issue to consider it a crisis – is he talking about dinner table conversation instead?

Q: But the fear that is felt is genuine.

A: So what do you want me to do? Ban all these bloggers? Shut down all the newspapers? I don’t think so.

We must live with the fact that this is now a modern world. Technology has enabled us to get to know each other so news gets moved faster.

ATN #9 If something is causing fear in the nation, the expected government action would be to remove the medium of communication (ban newspapers and blogs), not deal with the source of fear.

Q: Maybe walking just says that they are partisan towards justice?

A: I wasn’t complaining about their memorandum. It was the way they did it — demonstrating on the street. The opposition was there.

When you go on the street, how are you going to stop the opposition from coming in?

In a meeting with the PM, those who are the opposition — who are not genuine lawyers — cannot go in.

You should be apolitical. You are an NGO, you are not an opposition party. You have stature, you’ve got a position in public, people look at you with respect.

But the moment you take to the street, who is going to respect you? They’ll laugh at you. There are people who are laughing at you — but they don’t write in the papers Bodoh punya kerja! (fool’s errand).

ATN #10 Demonstrating in the streets is the equivalent of running around naked – nobody is going to respect you but will laugh at you instead.

Huh? I cannot recall a single demonstration by a group of 1000+ people where others watching them pointed and laughed. Maybe that’s what Nazri does in his Ivory Wisma – playback a collection of political demonstration videos and point and laugh at the television.

Q: Is there anything wrong in walking for your beliefs?

A: No. But that is the way of the opposition. If you are a political party, we can understand. But if you are a respectable society, that’s not an honourable way to do it — not when the government accords you respect.

How can you bring yourself so low? The moment you do that, we don’t respect you.

If I say to you, “M****r*****r you!”, can you say, “Eh, let us sit down, we’ll talk about it.” No!

ATN #11 Insulting someone removes any chance of forgiveness. Humans in Nazri’s world do not forgive.

Poor man, he must have faced a lot of cold shoulders growing up. Look at him now, using foul language in an interview knowing full well it will be published.

Q: The Bar Council claims that they have never been able to get an appointment with the CJ.

A: He’s retiring anyway.

I told them, “Fairuz is also a human being. Kalau you criticise, criticise, criticise dia — dia mana mau layan you.” (If you keep criticising him, he won’t entertain you).

I can get a lot of things out of you if I talk to you nicely, but if I start shouting at you, do you think you will accommodate me? No way!

Q: But you are more than an ordinary person. You are also the de facto law minister.

A: But you cannot divorce me from the fact that I am also a human being.

Q: That’s very irresponsible.

A: Human beings, there are ways, how you do it. You want something, you talk. You don’t shout, and then expect to get something, no way.

ATN #12 Shouting at people will never get what you want. Human beings must be treated with politeness and respect.

This is great considering Nazri is such a foul mouthed disrespectful minister in Parliament.

Q: Why didn’t the government empower the panel to compel witnesses?

A: Because we have to first determine the authenticity of the video clip, to make it into a formal and genuine complaint.

Sidenote #4 This is quite revealing – apparently Nazri does not consider the report lodged by Sim and Sivarasa to be a genuine complaint. You know what that means? The complaint and resulting investigation is not bound by the secrecy requirements laid out in the Anti Corruption Act.

Q: What if the video clip is genuine, but the person doesn’t want to come forward?

A: That’s not our problem. We have already set up the panel, it’s for them.

As I’ve said, if I was the one who made the complaint, I would be very happy, I’d come (forward) and co-operate. There’s nothing to fear.

(Opposition MP Lim) Kit Siang said to me this morning (Wednesday) the problem is not that they are afraid of the public taking action against them; but they are afraid of the government.

I think that’s no excuse.

Sidenote #5 Nazri admits that Lim Kit Siang spoke to him about Whistle Blower. But didn’t Nazri state in ATN #1 that fellow MPs do not talk about the matter? Apparently Lim Kit Siang is not an MP in Nazri’s eyes.

Q: If people come forward and give their statements to the panel, and the authenticity of the video clip is verified, what would the next step be?

A: If it was verified to be true, the next step would be to investigate the judiciary, the person there.

Q: Using what?

A: Maybe a royal commission.

Sidenote #6 Well at least Nazri is being consistent – even if Whistle Blower came forward a Royal Commission may not be formed. Why? Because ATN #4 and ATN #5 say so.

Q: There is less than two weeks for people to come forward with what they have. Are you hoping that they will?

A: I hope so. We set up the panel to investigate the authenticity of the tape.

Come forward, lah. Apa nak takut? Takkan kita nak bantai orang kita! (What’s there to be afraid of? We won’t beat up our own people!)

Every five years, we put ourselves up as candidates for election. If we do something wrong, do you think that people will let you go just like that? No way!

ATN #13 The Government does not beat up its own people.

Yes it does. This year alone the incidents in Batu Buruk and Kampung .. are shocking, truely shocking cases of government brutality.

Q: Maybe the informants’ concern is not so much the government, but that the parties in the video clip might take action against them.

A: But that is something beyond us. Even for us, if we do something, the lawyer can also take action against us.

It is not only the informant who will be left unprotected, the government can also be sued by the lawyer.

But that’s how it is. We can only do certain things. Beyond what we can do, we can’t promise. Even the panel can be sued.

Sidenote #7 The Panel can be sued? To the Panel members : How’s it feel guys, to read that you are potential scape goats if the Government ever gets in trouble over this matter, for coming to the wrong findings.

I really like how ballsy NST is – it looks like BN has lost their total control 🙂 FYI, ‘In totidem verbis’ means ‘In so many words’.

Written by ak57

November 9, 2007 at 12:27 am

Viewing is Authenticating

Nazri: No need for agency to keep tape

PUTRAJAYA: The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) needs to view the original full-length version of the “V.K. Lingam video tape”, but it doesn’t have to retain it.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz suggested this in response to the refusal of those who brought the tape to light to hand over the original recording of the telephone conversation between Lingam and, allegedly, a senior judge.

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has until tomorrow to submit the video clip for the ACA’s inspection.

“If he (Anwar) doesn’t want to hand over the original, I believe the ACA can ask him to play the original for them and once it’s over, he can take it back,” Nazri said yesterday.

” It’s not necessary for them to keep it.”

Nazri was commenting on an ACA directive to Anwar to produce the original video clip by Thursday or face imprisonment or a fine under Section 22 of the ACA Act.

(cut)…

No one has come forward to volunteer information so far, despite assurances from Nazri that their identities would be protected.

Despite this, Nazri said the government still had no plans to call a Royal Commission of inquiry into the video clip until its authenticity could be verified.

“The video clip is akin to a ‘surat layang’ (poison-pen letter) with no identity of the writer,” he said. “We can’t be having Royal Commissions for every poison-pen letter.”

– quoted from an article published in NST on 24th October 2007 (link)

My understanding so far has been that the ACA needs to establish whether the person depicted in the video is VK Lingam and whether he was speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz. So how can viewing the video and not taking it back for analysis be sufficient? Besides, Anwar has already denied owning the complete video so the demand from the ACA to hand it over is nonsense.

Nazri is only making it clear that this is a witch hunt, maybe they’ll send in an elite squad of ACA people with eidetic memory. Who is Nazri to be giving assurances to Whistle Blower that he will be protected? His word is not law, though he might think it is.

I can understand what he means by this video being a poison pen letter but there’s a key difference here – its a video, not words on paper that any 5 year old can write.

At the very least there should have been a public denial by VK Lingam and/or Tun Ahmad Fairuz. So far there has been none and once you add that behaviour to this big show by the government of ‘authenticating the video’ then its obvious who the guilty parties are – and that Nazri is trying to help them cover it up.

Good thing he’s not good at cover ups eh? I do have some notes on how the government could disprove the video without such a big show, but I think by the time I put it up the video will be officially dismissed by the Govt. I have been too busy of late to keep up with news and this comic.

ACA Sees The Video

Written by ak57

November 6, 2007 at 4:04 am

TBA:Hong Kong Magic

Video clip probe: Video clip to be sent to Hong Kong for analysis

KUALA LUMPUR: The Anti-Corruption Agency is sending the video clip of a lawyer purportedly in conversation with a top judge about judicial appointments, to experts in Hong Kong.

A reputable institution there will examine the video clip to determine its authenticity.

Sources said two ACA officers would head for the island in the next few days to hand over the video clip and other supporting documents to the organisation for analysis.

The institution was recommended to the ACA by the Independent Commission for Anti-Corruption in Hong Kong.

The analysis is expected to be completed by the end of the month.

“We will personally hand over the video clip and documents and collect them when the analysis is done to ensure the chain of evidence is not broken,” the sources said.

The ACA is rushing to get the video clip analysed because the agency is to brief the three-man independent panel on Oct 29 on whether the contents in the tape were doctored.

Sources said the ACA had earlier approached the US Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyse the video clip after the panel was set up on Sept 26, but the US organisation declined since it was not part of evidence involving a violent crime.

The analysis would include whether the image of the lawyer in the video clip was doctored or not, a voice comparison of the lawyer and whether the identity of the person the lawyer is talking to could be ascertained.

“The experts will attempt to enhance the voice of the person on the other end of the line with sophisticated equipment and technology,” the sources added.

(cut)…

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said the independent panel would have to depend on ACA investigations if no one volunteers to provide information on the authenticity of the video clip.

“The panel does not have the power to investigate unless it gets the consent of the attorney-general.”

He said this in response to news reports that not a single person had approached the panel’s secretariat to shed light into the authenticity of the tape.

“We should not dismiss the panel. They should be given a chance to carry out their task and produce a report.”

Nazri, however, expressed hope that those with personal knowledge about the video clip would come forward as the panel was set up to “get to the bottom of the matter”.

– quoted from an article published in NST on 19th October 2007 (link)

Well this is good news, the ACA is finally showing some effort in getting technical expertise to determine whether the video is fake. Increasing the volume to see if Tun Fairuz’s voice is on the other end of the line is a good idea, but I very much doubt that the microphone of the recording device used would be sensitive enough to pick that up 😦

Of course Nazri could not resist trying to make Whistle Blower look bad again – how can he say the panel is set up to get to the bottom of the matter but does not have the power to investigate? He is so focused on trying to make people feel guilty that he does not seem to realise the daftness of his statements. Seriously how do you solve anything if you are not allowed to ask questions – don’t you need to dig to get to the bottom of a matter?

Nazri Logic #3

Written by ak57

October 20, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Urged to Focus

Nazri should focus on message not lawyers, says Malaysian Bar

KUALA LUMPUR, SUN:

The Malaysian Bar today urged Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz to focus on the issue of restoring crediblity of the judiciary rather than on lawyers and whistleblowers.

Its president Ambiga Sreenevasan said the issue was not something new as the bar had been calling for the strengthening of the judiciary but not much action or initiative was taken.

“What is important here is not whether we are behaving like an opposition party or not but the message put forward during our march,” Ambiga said.

She was responding to Nazri’s remark at a news portal which branded lawyers as “crazy” for showing their dissatisfaction over the country’s judiciary by marching from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s office on Sept 26.

“I do not wish to quarrel with the minister since I have a good working relationship with him but on this issue I disagree with him because earlier he had also stated that the Malaysian Bar was acting like an opposition party,” Ambiga said.

She said the walk for justice comprising more than 2,000 lawyers cutting across age, gender, racial line and seniority showed that they strongly considered this as a serious issue of the judiciary.

“The judiciary issue has been there for a long time and the march was just not about the video clip,” she added.

– quoted from an article published in NST on 14th October 2007 (link)

Wish I knew which news portal published that remark – its possibly Malaysiakini or Malaysia Today. Hmm while I agree that the march was not just about the video clip, looking back it does appear that way.

Of course you have to forget the fact that it takes one small thing to push oppressed people into expressing long repressed feelings – like dissatisfaction with the judiciary.

You also have to forget the fact that the bar had previously brought up this issue before, albeit without any marches.

Ignore the turnout of 2,000 people comprised of lawyers and members of the general public.

Just focus on the fact that the march was organised following the release of the video clip which implies a lot of things but doesn’t prove anything on its own.

Nazri Vision #1

Written by ak57

October 16, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Nazri Logic 2

Nothing worth commenting on in the papers today.

Nazri Logic #2

Written by ak57

October 13, 2007 at 4:51 am