Anwar don’t waste your time with lawyers’ disciplinary board and the Court of Appeal.
Judiciary to fix price of tainted politicians’ misdeeds in Najib’s cabinet
The implicit restraints that had been put in place socially have been dismantled, and power in its new form begs to be converted into opportunity. The primacy of desire means that the eye is always hungry, avid in its quest for acquisition, and any action is seen to lack consequences that cannot be reversed or managed through the use of some form of power.Police brute force of power has replaced the unwritten rules that governed behaviour as the primary arbiter of our actions. Currently, we live in a world between rules — those of an earlier era do not apply and new codes have not been framed or agreed to. The responsibility shifts to the enforcement of the law, but this is deeply compromised by the fact that the process is managed by those that cannot fully comprehend the meaning of the changes that we see around us. the operative word being ‘finally’. will it take government a lot to reach to this point, and the final call apparently to ask the Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patailto resign the argument was that these were merely allegations and that nothing conclusive had been put on the table. The idea that people could resign (and remember this is just a resignation from a position, not a jail sentence, and one that can easily be reversed if the individuals are eventually found not culpable) for misdemeanours that were strongly indicated seemed to be an alien one.
The need to evade responsibility both on part of the individuals as well as the government till as long as possible is a part of a larger narrative that goes beyond these instances or indeed this government. It seems to be part of a growing tendency to frame all debates in the vocabulary of the extreme. Demands are conceived of in the extreme, and deadlock prevails till some overwhelming force gets applied. Nothing happens without the intervention of courts, and that too only when they give direct orders, or the party high command when it exerts direct influence on a subject. The opposition too frames its demands in extreme terms- in every session, the resignation of some minister or the PM is demanded and used as a reason to boycott Parliament. The legislative houses have been reduced to empty shells, that exist to exert force rather than extract solutions from problems through debate and discussion. The only mode of protest that is deemed to have any value is that of the boycott which devalues the very institution that it is part of. Any other intermediate form of protest has lost currency. Of course, through cynical overuse, the boycott has now become a routine fact of life, and the government has begun to find it convenient to go along and put the onus of inaction on the opposition. The boycott threat has spent itself; now, without a desire to bring down the government and face elections, the government simply ignores the opposition.
The malaise is not restricted to the political establishment alone- the media and the middle class speak in the same language. Calls for aggressive pro-active ‘decisive’ action against criminal wrongdoings by Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail , the demand for all manners of crime, the need to weed out corruption with a silver bullet of some kind- the yearning for decisive answers and final solutions can be seen everywhere. The conversational pitch is set so high that any attempt at reasonableness is construed either as a sign of deliberate muddying-of-waters or of weakness. What has been lost is a belief in the power of discussion; today’s conversations at held at gunpoint and end up being guttural exchanges of threats.
In a complex world, the desire for simple answers that are the result of the use of superior force is potentially dangerous. For it translates into a desire for seductive forms of clarity and a susceptibility to the shallow symbol. The contempt for engaging in dialogue, exploring shaded modes of resolution, staying in intermediate zones of accommodation and negotiation, being comfortable with the idea of give-and-take makes all problems seem intractable. The recent episode involving criminal wrongdoings by Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail is a case in point – the use of diplomatic means rather than futile sabre-rattling demonstrated the power of restraint and nuanced dialogue. In the real world, not all problems have neat solutions, not all individuals have all the answers, not all words need to be backed up by actions and not all acts of strength translate into power. We navigate through issues using a combination of word, gesture, symbolic action, benign neglect, tolerance, the veiled threat and the occasional use of brute force. Scams have come and gone in a flurry, and all debates have been about individuals. Any attempt to bring about institutional change has been thwarted, any meaningful dialogue about bringing about deep and real change has been avoided. The two ministers have gone, and what difference has it made to anything? Had their departure been an act of contrition, it would have meant something. Otherwise, it is just about two insignificant politicians being replaced by two others and life going on as usual.
Power struggle is the new game in UMNO on removing attorney general What is being attempted is to dismantle Mahathir grip on attorney general Everyone knows Gani Pattail got promoted to AG for his role in Anwar’s case for sodomy Mahathir purposely brought him to stop and kill Anwar Ibrahim
What is being attempted is to dismantle Shafee takes on a pillion rider, it is becomes part of an old and familiar binary of power. It becomes part of a choice set that resides inside conventional politics and familiar politicking, rather than outside it.
Why is Shafee so desparate to prosecute Anwar on the fiat of the AG? Even if the AG approached him, Shafee could have declined. It all points to a personal agenda to get Anwar convicted at all costs. The purpose of a criminal trial is to see justice being done and not to secure a conviction at all costs. Does it serve the public interest and the need to do justice if Shafee is allowed to conduct the appeal? Clearly not. Shafee is mirred in controversy; has his own ambition to become the next AG; and has consistently made prejudicial comments against Anwar in public and private. He is not a fit and proper person to conduct the appeal for the Public Prosecutor. How can Shafee hope to be impartial and objective when he has a personal hatred for the accused? Any reasonable right thinking member of the public would come to the conclusion that the prosecution cannot possibly be fair and objective with Shafee at its head.Sins call for atonement, crimes must be punished. And what better, if such redemption can be detached from those really culpable and outsourced to some dumb creature that cannot complain? This was the idea behind the Biblical practice of casting a goat into the wilderness after ascribing all manner of ills and improvidence to it. Many virtues extolled by religion have waned over time; scapegoats have thrived.Lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah will be allowed to act as deputy public prosecutor (DPP) in the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on his sodomy charges.Anwar had also said that he would not receive a fair hearing if Shafee were to lead the prosecution team.Mat Zain’s insistence that police could investigate Gani based on the contents of his statutory declaration (SD) without lodging a police report.Mat Zain drew attention to Sections 107 and 107A of the Criminal Procedure Code related to information given to the police and their powers to investigate. Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman said”I am saying … Read more
Explain meeting with Dr M
Mat Zain said the people were more interested to know why Shafee called him to his office through former Commercial Crime Department director Datuk Ramli Yusuf and later took them to meet former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
“Or can he tell the public, if it was really Dr Mahathir who wanted to see me or was it Shafee himself who planned the meeting for his own personal benefit?” he asked.
Mat Zain also pointed out that Shafee must explain to the court the reason he concealed a material fact that he had acknowledged receipt of a bundle of documents from him on September 24.
Mat Zain said his meeting with Shafee, together with Ramli, was on August 10, not a day earlier as mentioned in Shafee’s affidavit.
He also warned Shafee that he had proof to show that it was Shafee who had wanted to meet him and Ramli, and not the other way around, as claimed in the affidavit.
Mat Zain also asked Shafee to disclose what was discussed at his office and later at Dr Mahathir’s house in Seri Kembangan.
“If Shafee says that Gani’s conduct in the Pulau Batu Puteh was never discussed during the one hour meeting in his office and later for another hour in Dr Mahathir’s house, then he should tell what was the subject matter that was discussed,” he said.
Mat Zain said Shafee was a public servant in his capacity as DPP and under the law, he was required to provide information of offences allegedly committed.
“As a lawyer, he is bound by the Legal Profession Act when acting as prosecutor and he shall not surpress material facts establishing the innocence of accused persons,” he said.
Mat Zain said he would be making a second SD to further explain the full discussion Shafee had with Ramli in his presence with regards to Ramli’s suit against Gani and several others.
He said his SD could only be declared false only after an investigation, not based on what Shafee had stated in his affidavit.
“I challenge Shafee now to demand that the prime minister order a full scale investigation into the contents of the SD and he (Shafee) knows where he stands.
“Shafee may well find that his affidavit is the one that had been slanted,” he said.
Mat Zain, in his 31-page SD, had said that he went with Shafee and Ramli to Dr Mahathir’s house during the Hari Raya period this year where they allegedly discussed the wrongdoings of Gani.
However, Shafee had said that the idea for Mat Zain to go to Dr Mahathir’s house was only decided impromptu in his office and there was no agenda except to pay respect to Dr Mahathir during the festive season.
Shafee had also denied that he was involved in any meeting to discuss Gani’s conduct or the Pulau Batu Puteh issue. He had also said that he did not insinuate or mention about funds being transferred into a bank account in Hong Kong after the Pulau Batu Puteh case was decided by the international court.
Anwar’s application to recuse Shafee will be heard on December 19.
Anwar, among others, had disclosed in his application last Friday that Shafee knew of Gani’s actions but the lawyer deliberately suppressed important evidence, especially on the Pulau Batu Puteh territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore.
Further, the SD pointed towards Gani and Musa’s involvement in fabricating evidence in the infamous “black eye” incident.
As such, Anwar had said, Shafee was not a fit and proper person to be appointed deputy public prosecutor to lead the prosecution team.
He had added that Shafee would not be able to comply with the requirement of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) 1978 to conduct the appeal.
If you can’t stand The Heat, get out of the kitchen Cabinet. The Heat, a news weekly, has been suspended indefinitely by the Home Ministry, believed to be over an article in a November edition about Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah MansorSenior editor-in-chief at HCK Media Chong Cheng Haisaid behavior Thick skin despicables that are afraid of their own shadows.by the home ministry! For a report commenting on PM’s wife becomes a serious crime that warrants for a revocation of license. Politicians cannot take criticism don’t go into politics. We have a real sick ruling political party right now!his is freedom of the press ala Najib and UMNO for you. It is a disgrace that in the 21st century a country claiming to be a democracy still wants to control the press and what is published. If Najib or Rosmah are offended by the article just sue the publication for defamation. But why need to suspend the publication indefinitely? This is draconian and an anathema to the basic tenets of freedom and democracy. Nothing has changed in Malaysia and nothing will as long as the BN stays in power. It proves that the piecemeal amendments to the PPPA 1984 was nothing but a farce to deceive voters. With only 47% electorate support, UMNO/BN is provoking the people to take drastic measures if it persists in stifling their freedom and rights.
