Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Confucianism: Is there one maxim which ought to be acted upon throughout one’s whole life? Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty. Do nothing unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.

Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for others what he desires for himself.

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary.

Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto others whatever is not good for itself.

Let’s however revisit your comments and examine them, one by one, and see what questions they invariably raise and how they could all add up.

1. You commented “//…There are enough evidence from Abdullah’s actions and inactions ever since he became Prime Ministers, tell tale signs that he will be forced out of office soon…//…” Now, what does this suggest? That UMNO is divided, not monolithic; that there are factional rivalries; that Abdullah is facing a stronger faction? Which, if true, raises another question : could widespread criticisms of his ‘cakap tak serupa bikin’ relative to the promised reforms forming a plank of his electoral pledges be explained in terms of these being quietly opposed effectively by the stronger faction so that by them remaining unfulfilled, the promisor loses political credibility/mandate making power transition, at appropriate time, easier?

2. You asked, “…//… how the hell did Anwar get out of jail so soon if the judiciary is not fair then why did the judges overturned his sodomy conviction, if we presumed Anwar is innocent?…//…” Now, I would ask, which strikes you as more likely – (a) judges fair or (b) judiciary deferential or beholden to Executive? What’s the balance of probabilities? If you think (b) is more likely, as I think you would, it raises yet another question, what does freeing Anwar then imply?
3. You further commented in context of disclosure of video clip, “…//…And today it is the man Abdullah showed compassion to is the one who will ultimately destroy his legacies…//…” (Am I wrong to detect a tinge of regret in your tone that there is betrayal or a smack of ingratitude in the whole episode? May be yes may be no but to get the answers, why don’t you focus more precisely on the following questions: Who does Anwar’s video clip really embarrass? Judging by the counter measures to side track and discredit authenticity of Anwar’s video clip, who do you really think is doing the initiatives and protecting the person embarrassed? Think further why such protection is sought for the person embarrassed, which raises the corollary question of what possible favour could the person embarrassed give in exchange to protector quid pro quo?
4. Next juxtaposition whatever your conclusions in (2) & (3) against the necessary implications of what you said in (1), and what would you further conclude?

Think of the possibilities of what you yourself have astutely observed. All I can and will say generally about politics 101 is that it is often described as an art of possibilities – and often deception. That is why it is not unthinkable why political rivals have to be shown outward support and political allies camouflaged as outward adversaries. Interesting isn’t it? In warfare, deception – and element of surprise as Sun Tzu of “art of War” fame used to say, determines decisively victory even against the stronger faction. The Greeks knew this 1000 years ago. It is in their mythology. If you’re movie buff, I’m sure you might have watched and enjoy the Hollywood blockbuster film starring Brat Pitt of how Agamemnon’s troops penetrated the fortress of Troy. :)

Sometimes I wonder, how the hell did Anwar get out of jail so soon if the judiciary is not fair then why did the judges overturned his sodomy conviction, if we pressumed Anwar is innocent? And today it is the man Abdullah showed compassion to is the one who will ultimately destroy his legacies. There are enough evidents from Abdullah’s actions and inactions ever since he became Prime Ministers, tell tale signs that he will be force out of office soon. This will probably happen come Nov 10, one hundred thousands people march through the capital. Can Abdullah take this crisis of no confidence against him, he can’t save Fairuz, will UMNO save Abdullah? So chop chop, Nov 10 must not be allowed to happen.

And there is nothing anybody could do about it!! That’s what power is and that’s what power does. So you fellas could stomp and tear your hair out by the roots. Nothing is going to change.

What changes are the prices of roti canai, teh tarik and bak kuteh.

I’d like to rephrase that if I could.

The doing is by BN, the allowing is by the Malaysian public – and the political opposition?? The political opposition does what it does best. Oppose!

More could have done to make sure the three members not sit as a panel or have then resigned en masse when their requests for more powers like the power to call witnesses etc are not met.

Fine analysis and reasoning on November 3rd, 2007 at 22: 47.42.

Basically, if I can summarize your reasoning, you are saying that the government has at least 2 choices:

Choice 1. Try to let the issue die a natural death after Fairuz retirement.

Choice 2. Try to meet the intelligent and respectful minority group by holding an RCI to investigate and publicly report its findings …

I hope you don’t seriously think Choice 2 is going to happen. Seriously.

If I was walking the corridors of power, I will definitely – without a shread of doubt whatsoever – choose Choice 1.

Why? Because I delay justice being revealed. Any delay, however short a period, is better than admitting. The powers have already decided that from Day 1.

You main arguments are on the 6/14 and Anwar’s ability to reveal these closer to election time. Well, as you’ve said, the majority don’t know the issue, or couldn’t care less. The lawyers can march all they like when it is revealed near election, but BN controls the media, and there will be a media blackout, and don’t expect that to change the election results. What can lawyers do when the media controls public perception?

Sorry, but that’s my honest assessment of the current situation.

The only hope – from an election perspective – is for the Opposition to come up with the VCD. Imagine – you can show really good pictures of the recent lawyer’s march that was blacked out by the media which didn’t make front page news in the VCD … and this VCD can be produced now, not near election time. And there is no limit to a 2nd VCD, a 3rd VCD, etc. as election gets closer, with updated contents …

Just think about the power of 10 million VCDs which speaks only the facts, in the hands of 10 million voters. This has maximum impact in terms of countering BN’s grip of the media. But don’t expect the voters to be persuaded only by facts.

The challenges facing opposition parties is like an average Malaysian trying to climb Mount Everest .. almost impossible, unless one is highly trained, disciplined, experienced, not to mention highly determined, etc. etc. etc. For practical purposes, impossible… sadly.

Old Observer.

____________

I don’t disagree at all with this fine reasoning.

The problem is that it is only 8 mins. Out of supposedly 14 mins. Or maybe it was 80 mins, but Anwar lied. Or maybe the full-length tape was 8 mins.

Who knows, if the “original” FULL LENGTH tape was not supplied?

Can the 8 mins tape determine that the original was 14 mins? Unfortunately, I’m not a technical expert, and I believe 99.99% of Malaysian Rakyat aren’t either.

If the full length tape was 80 mins, then, is it possible that the tape is tempered since we saw “cuts”? I.e. the government has already proven that it is tempered since it contain cuts?

In my personal opinion, it is highly unlikely that the contents of the tape can be discarded just like that, even though the government can say it is cut and edited. The truth of the matter is that by supplying only 8 mins, then, the best one can hope is that a “reasonably intelligent” person – after a *careful study* of the 8 mins tape – will come to a *reasonably educated guess* that something is fishy – if someone *points out* to them the “fishy parts”.

Basically, a whole lot of “ifs” to 99% of the Rakyat who don’t access the Internet to research and study Lingamgate.

The power of controlling the media.

Old Observer.

November 3rd, 2007 at 18: 02.22
the government will NEVER see this as a crisis.

partly,we Malaysians need to take the blame. including myself. we have very short memory.

remember the heat was on Zulkopli ( the former aca chief on corruption ) .the whistle blower was non other than a senior aca officer himself. BUT ag and polis say NO CASE. he shakes hand and say goodbye to his staff and enjoy his pension. maybe he is appointed as chairman of some glc. my guess. anybody cares now?

remember the heat on the AP kings, the lists were out, millionaires are made , and the minister went for a foot reflexology in australia ( as if Malaysia has no such medical facility ). But all is nice and comfy now, and the minister is still indispensible. anybody cares now?

remember,the port klang free trade zone fiasco of 4 billion. oh yes the government decided in national interest to bail it out. the minister went abroad for medical treatment. anybody cares now?
”

_____________

I agree totally.

Human memory – by nature – is indeed short. It must be, else, we’ll go insane.

Which is why there is such a thing as books, magazines, VCDs, DVDs, and other written records … to reminds us of things our mind have a tendency to forget.

Which is why I pushed for the idea of Opposition parties creating a free VCD – 10 million of them – one for each potential voter – that documents all these things that you’ve mentioned.

The benefit is a written record. A VCD is better than a leaflet, since you have both video and audio, and can convey much better information over a 30 minute VCD than a leaflet. Also, it can be properly organized and designed to be engaging, and can be more persuasive, when it comes to convincing Rakyat to vote for a change.

Is it legally wrong to present factual cases in a VCD? Is it legally wrong to question the cause to all these things like AP, Port Klang Free Zone, Lingam Gate, etc. etc. etc.? Is it legally wrong to compile such a VCD?

If not, why is it that I still haven’t received my free VCD?

Old Observer.

“Satria Asia said…
I wonder what they mean by ‘not authentic’? Would they mean it’s all made up — like a drama?

Anyway, Anwar should give them the original and get it over and one with…”

Those who don’t read the Internet blogs will be thinking that it is Anwar who has done something wrong, instead of the government. To the ignorant Rakyat (who don’t think they are ignorant), it’s all based on confidence … sadly.

What can you do to counter that?

Old Observer.

Very simple sentences by the BN government. 99% of Malaysian voters can relate to that, since they don’t follow the Internet blogs. What is our equally simple and short responses? Is it possible to counter the government’s response with equal simplicity? E.g. imagine you met a friend in a coffee shop – do you think you can convince him/her that the Lingam Tape is a terrible thing to have happened in Malaysia, that he will want to vote for the Opposition instead of BN currently?

1. What about the CONTENT of the tape? (99% of Malaysians will probably ask “yes, what does it show?” – they won’t understand).

2. Is it right for a lawyer to fix the appointment of judges with the PM? (99% of Malaysians will probably ask “what’s wrong with that?”)

3. If judges are not promoted on merit, then, doesn’t that mean the cases tried by the judges could be fixed? (90% of Malaysians will probably ask “so what?”)

To at least 90% of Malaysian voters, they will not understand nor want to understand the importance of the independence between the Executive and the Judiciary.

Sadly, this is one thing that we must continue to fight for – independence between Executive and Judiciary, but DAP’s and the Opposition’s limited resources means that it’s going to be very difficult winning Rakyat’s elections based on this scandal … logic alone is not going to do it.

Old Observer.

______________

Exactly.

In fact, I would go so far as saying 99% of Malaysians have no idea of what we are talking about, unless we here set a chain reaction, by telling our family, friends, colleagues, neighbours, and everyone else we touched.

Only when the Rakyat realizes that the coming election is very important to our nation’s future, then, we might have a small hope for a change. Otherwise, it is lost hope.

Old Observer.

Let’s further assume that the government will take the following course: in 5 days time, Haidar Panel would complete its finding ie no witness means tape authenticity is not established. To buttress that, maybe Cyber Security Sdn Bhd would certify the 8 min Clip examined by it is not authentic.

To take this course the government faces a major obstacle. The Haidar Panel/ Cyber Security are basing their findings in a week’s time based on an edited 8 out of a 14 minute video clip. This means that Datuk Seri Anwar Inbrahim (DSAI)/PKR are still in greater control of this shadow play with the powers-that-be. One can’t make a determination of the inauthenticity of a video clip based on 8/14 part of it! The other side controls the timing of when to release the 6/14 portion of this clip and how damning is the disclosure of 6/14 is unknown by the government for so long that it has not got a hold on that! Obviously DSAI will release it once election is called! And he might get foreign forensics to contradict the local findings on issue of authenticity. Then what?

The government also banks on the fact that no matter how damning the disclosure of the 6/14 of the video clip is, it will not detract from BN/UMNO’s electoral support. (This remains to be seen). But so far the government’s logic is that it is fanciful to talk of judicial crisis when the average Malaysian, or at least 80% of the electorate have never heard of the Rule of Law, much less the independence of Judiciary based on Baron de Montesquieu’s theory of separation of 3 branches of government in his Spirit of the Laws (1748). So what adverse impact could this “disquiet about our judiciary over the past few years” that Sultan Azlan Shah spoke about possibly have on the BN’s electoral popularity? That is why de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz obliquely countered HRH’s statement by telling reporters later that the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary is a matter of perception. “That’s their perception which may not necessary be mine. What is (meant by) ‘public’? Does it mean 1,000 to 2,000 people or the whole nation? We respect opinions but the government has its own perception so we agree to disagree,” he said.

Nazri however may have forgetten the other fact – that the 80% majority, whilst effective in delivering the electoral votes, have less impact on general public opinion that in turn may influence the 80% views. It is the vociferous and articulate 20% minority comprising the stakeholders of the Justice System – the Civil Society, Opposition Parties, the Malaysian Bar Members – that are effective in influencing public opinion. It is trite that all changes in any society are generally led by the vocal minority than the silent majority. Whether a “crisis” exists within Judiciary depends on whether this educated and articulate group, which knows most of matters pertaining to the administration of Justice, perceives there is a crisis. It is not whether the 80% perceive there is a crisis as they neither know nor care much, in constitutional terms, of the meaning and implications of Rule of Law or Judicial Independence! It may well be a grave miscalculation to underestimate the influence of this minority group and to treat their demands and grievance with disdain and nonchalance. One does so at one’s peril.

It would be safer to accommodate the concerns of this group half way if not all the way. So far the allowing of Fairuz to fade away under a cloud of scandal is not enough : to pacify this group even half way, there must be a transparent and independent determination whether the events of judicial fixing were true or not. And this can only be done with the establishment of a Royal Commission appointed by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1950 and reporting directly to His Majesty with full powers to subpoena witnesses and offer immunity of testimony. To keep on denying a Royal Commission in preference towards a toothless Haidar Panel is to engage in a shadow play that persistently reinforces the concept that the government is more interested in preserving the reputation of its current or past tainted judicial officers that the concerns of the rakyat for justice that must invariably come from independent judges.

Hopefully, such a concession to a Royal Commission will pave the way to a smoother eventual confirmation of Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi as Chief Justice in 6 months time, desired by the Powers-that-be. (It is understandable that the Powers are of a cast of mind that our top judge must reflect the appropriate balance to be kept between majority concerns for independence/ability and government’s concerns that he is at least not anti establishment – so Zaki would be a comfortable choice.) The objections against Zaki’s appointment (past legal advisor to UMNO and domestic problems) are valid but they can still be managed and overcome if the Royal Commission is conceded.

I think what basically concerns the government is that once such a Royal Commission is established, it may not be able to control its findings. If its findings confirm that the courts are/were indeed packed by some persons beholden to the Executive in exchange for appointments, it will open the Pandora box of public demands for an immediate overhaul and revamp of judicial appointees and constitutional amendment favouring the establishment of Judicial Commission to appoint judges in lieu of selection being vested only with the PM on CJ’s advice with the formality of Rulers consent.

This is something that they are not prepared to give up control of.
This is where the intractable tussle lies.

Civil society, opposition and members of Malaysian Bar are, by majority, of the position that in order for the Executive to be stable, fair, predictable and principled, it must stop its interference and influence over the judges of the land who are the only safeguard for justice and fair play to be meted to the Rakyat – both between themselves inter-se as well as between government and citizenry and their rights.

This is where the crux of the ultimate issue lies ….

“Malaysians have been had from day one by allowing the formation of a panel to undertake the so-called investigation. Once they allow then there is some committment to whatever finding the panel arrives at.”

I must be living in a different country. Who “allowed” the investigation ?