Yep, the above is the sad state of fact of a majority of malaysians.

sightseeing :
//Nazri should know that the rakyat are no longer living in the 1960s; they are not stupid and gullible anymore.//yhsiew
——————————-
yep they are all morons sadly they traded in their future for a cheap bribe. I pity the fools LOL!

The MACC is not allowed to act independently. It has to take order from the country’s no. 1.

We are a freaking joke of a country in law and order. Our institutions are frankly the stuff of late-night talk-show jokes. Consequently in reality we are living a dream state to believe we actually have a real society and nation.

Frankly, I think its time for the rakyat to stop paying taxes or at least cut it in half-en-mass..If I were Hindraf, I would do that – threaten to start a not-pay taxes movement since its a freaking joke.. How many people can they throw in jail?

There is no need to argue any further. MACC is taking instruction all the while for any action on the big big fish.

They have wasting and eating into the taxpayers moneys and all these has been wasted on these bunch of stooges.

This guy is the worst of its kind. He is there not because he can serve the best of people interest but defend to his best the existing rotten and corrupted system. He has submit in totality to the corrupt.

He may have the law and may know the law, just like the Lingam guy who has knowingly abuse the law to the fullest.

The pity was the system still seem fit to cover their ass and therefore cover the corrupt system.

As far as this guy is there it will serve as laughing stock to the world.

I hope you are right to assume that the rakyat are no longer stupid and gullible. The sad news is that a large majority are not only stupid and gullible but also blind as evidenced in Bagan Pinang.

If judge fixing/brokering is corrupt act and a crime” the motives of the perpetrator – whether to impress others are irrelevant and not exculpate the act. When charges of criminal intimidation and sedition were brought against Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) based on what he wrote, did it matter an iota RPK’s motives and whether he was just trying to impress others with his half truths or lies as the authorities describe them?

The other part – “Should anyone act to advise the prime minister on the appointment of judges, this act itself cannot be taken as an offence” – yeah but this is sophisticated/fine skewing of the true issue since the Commission findings have nothing to do with anyone being proven as having called and advised the prime minister on the appointment of judges but what is proven is that someone called or took a call from a sitting judge, a public official, suggesting/implying that help would be given by way of advising the prime minister on the appointment of judges – that is the gravament of the charge – nevermind whether that (calling/advising the PM) was actually done, or if done, the then Prime Minister heeded or did not heed that advice.

“the brokering of judges may be morally wrong, but there are no specific laws against it. …His actions can undermine and erode the integrity of the judiciary, but things must be viewed from a legal perspective…moral and legal must be separated”.

This is “not correct”, “not correct” and “not correct” statement of law.

Come on lah – how could there be no specific laws against “brokering of judges”???

Influence peddling in relation to official position esp a judge position will constitute a corrupt act under any anti corruption legislation anywhere in the world….

It is an act of corruption to even broker/fix the referee in a “football” game, let alone a referee in the game of litigation in a court ie judge in relation to cases.

Brokering of judges will come squarely under purview of our anti corruption legislation, the MACC Act.

Under this Act, it is an offence to give “gratification” to a public official like a judge to procure his “performing or abstaining from performing or aiding in procuring, expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing the performance of, any official act” or “showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour” in his capacity as judge, with the expression “gratification” being defined in MACC as to include any offer of “any office, dignity, employment, contract of employment or services, and agreement to give employment or render services in any capacity”….

It is true that law and morality – though often intersecting- are not necessarily parallel/congruent in every instance.

[For example, it is criminal for a person to throw TBH out of 14th Floor of MACC building, Plaza Masalam, but it may not be criminal for another witness (not abetting/encouraging the criminal act in any way) but just to stand by and watch the perpetration of that crime without lifting even a finger to prevent or stop it – no matter how immoral or callous the non-involvement and indifference may be!]

This strange division between a crime and morality is based on the yardstick that an act no matter how immoral does not descend to level of being categorised a crime unless it “harms” other people. The benchmark has allways been drawn at “harm”.

The harm may be inflicted on another person or his property – say robbery, murder, stealing, rape, criminal breach of trust etc.

More so if the harm is inflicted on institutions like judiciary and fair administration of justice, because then the harm inflicted is not just on an institution but through that institution the harm is inflicted on just about everybody, actual and potential seeking, as litigants, justice in courts! So how could that (brokering of judges) be just immoral but not criminal when the harm on institutional integrity and its effects are vast and grave on society and potentially greater on larger number of people and not just one person???