PM boycotts Law Conference (updated)

“Bar Council’s conference scores double firsts” was the Sunday Star headline report for the three-day 14th Malaysian Law Conference 2007 themed “50 Years of Merdeka” at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre beginning today.

The Sunday Star headline was right but the “double firsts” will be for completely different reasons.

Last night, I learnt that the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who in a lengthy New Sunday Times interview yesterday asked “Where got crisis of the judiciary?”, will not be closing the Conference on Wednesday as announced in the Conference Programme.

This morning, I learn that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, will be boycotting the Law Conference, although he is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at the opening session from 9.40 am – 10.30 am after the opening by the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah.

Where got judicial crisis? Where got constitutional crisis?

Postscript – The Prime Minister is inviting all participants of the Law Conference to an unscheduled dinner at Hotel Renaissance tonight.

Malaysiakini reported that Abdullah will read his keynote address meant for delivery at the Law Conference this morning at the dinner.

Malaysiakini also reported that Abdullah “cancelled his appearance at the opening ceremony at the eleventh hour to officiate the launch of the East Coast Economic Region project” in Kuala Terengganu.

  1. #1 by toniXe on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 9:01 am

    At long last the battle begins…

  2. #2 by kcb on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 9:20 am

    “I want to be fair. I am fair and I will always be fair.”

  3. #3 by 1eyecls on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 9:26 am

    if BN is thrown out in the next GE,i urged the new Govt. to sack everyone except the crazy Nazri,remained him in the Ministry of PM,but since he always talk too much,talk cock,make useless and stupid remarks,let him be the CEO of the department’s toilet!shut his stupid mouth out!

  4. #4 by malaysia born on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 9:55 am

    One minute they are saying, there is no constitutional crisis” and the next, this action.

    How then are we going to trust what these people say? Where then is their credibility?

    Yes, the battle lines may has been drawn and we will all shout,”Let the battle begin!”, BUT BEAR IN MIND, THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG AND DIRTY BATTLE.

  5. #5 by pwcheng on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:07 am

    I hope the people, irregardless of race will stand up to to defend the nation against the incessant rape of the country by the corrupted UMNO government. The majority of the Malays by now must realized that what UMNO is giving them are crumbs as compared to the gang of UMNO thieves.
    If the country had been ruled by a sincere government who had the people at heart, the country will be very much better off by now for everybody in terms of health care,transportation, and most importantly spending power but instead the country is plunged in crisis after crisis and we have idiotic ministers who still try to mask them by denying, thinking that they can still fool the people by having such denial syndrome. A country with so much natural resources cant even come close to its Southern neighbor in terms of development and earning power is a clear indication of what is going on inside after 50 years of independence as compared to our southern neighbor who has only 44 years of independence. Our similarity are no too far away from Myanmar. Just ponder on this and to see how far away I am from truth. The people’s last bastion of defense, i.e the judiciary has been destroyed and they are still denying it.
    Give them another 10 years the country will go to the dogs and the people must now stand up to show that we mean business and no more abuse of their power to plunder the country.
    Incidentally, why are they shouting to increase the price of petroleum and its by products when the price is up but remained deaf and dumb when the price goes down. The only time he opened is mouth is to defend by saying that the government will not lower the price because it fluctuates. Come Jan 1st, lets see whether it fluctuates only one way.

  6. #6 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:14 am

    Probably he is thinking, fools rush in where angels fear to thread. He is wondering what to say after the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah has first addressed the importance of upholding the Federal Constitution and independence of the Judiciary, and after him, conference speakers address issues like “Freedom of Religion”, “Role of the Bar in Upholding the Constitution” (Judicial crisis?) and “Dealing with Electronic Evidence” (Video clip?) and finally his de facto minister of law is expected to close the conference with the summation to all distinguished legal luminaries (including from other countries),“Where got crisis of the judiciary?”

    Why is the most important person in law here not invited – our CJ Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim – for such a high powered conference on matters of law & constitution or was he invited but declined to come?

    The Bar Council conference will score a “triple first” if they could get the CJ to speak on “Role of the Judiciary in Upholding the Constitution” or “Dealing with Electronic Evidence”! :)

  7. #7 by Jimm on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:20 am

    Our country law and order were heavily changed and passed by those ELITE group to cater for their selfish needs and best of all hiding well behind the Ketuanan to gain their full support.
    I believe that none of them whether direct ELITE or workers for them should attend this event as it means nothing to them.
    The changes that we have been crying all these years are too far to be comfort and the truth that are revealing each day makes our sorrow deepens.
    It’s like trying one stunt too many and still they claimed it’s for our good. To me, every shortcuts that were executed in the progress of claiming what can be said as rightfully them have proven to be the worst ever decision taken.

  8. #8 by pwcheng on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:27 am

    The Bar Council conference will score a “triple first” if they could get the CJ to speak on “Role of the Judiciary in Upholding the Constitution” or “Dealing with Electronic Evidence”! :)

    Interesting topic, but it will be asking a thief to give a talk on honesty and hold fast to one of the teachings of the 10 commandments “refrain from stealing”. Good one Jeffrey.

  9. #9 by grace on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:34 am

    Nazri is shivering on seeing HRH Sultan of Perak who is far, far more capable thanNazri. Honestly Nazri can only be qualified to be an officeboy only in other developed countries.
    Oh yes, Pak Lah too has chicken out on hearing that HRH will be present. Pak Lah does not want to hear what HRH has to say. I am sure it is not pleasant to Pak Lah’s ear.


  10. #10 by Rocky on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:36 am

    I think Pak Lah takut lah. What the hell is he going to say? More so after Sultan Azlan Shah a former respected Lord President!

    Now where is our current CJ? Is he not attending this event? Hiding?

    as for Nazri, well he is a small boy who is ‘merajuk’ right now. Let him be. Maybe invite Raja Nazrin or a former CJ to close the conference. Gives it more respectability instead of Nazri doing the closing.

  11. #11 by sheriff singh on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:37 am

    Dia merajuk, kot. Sudah banyak kali kena hantam. Sekarang dia ‘tarik harga’.

  12. #12 by Jimm on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:41 am

    T4 boys have advised thier boss to stay away fron this event as it’s a proven choice to keep out of trouble. After all, “I don’t know” statement have earned its’ trademarked by PM.
    As for NA, he is just another small ‘big loud’ office boy that are not capable to manage these type of direct ‘appearance’ as his only playround in at the Parliament. T4 boys are doing a great favor for him on this matter.

  13. #13 by grace on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:44 am

    Nazri is scared of the lawyers whom he labelled as stupid. Hey, Nazri, go and show that you are smarter than all of them. I really look down on you Nazri. you only think that you are smart but as i see it , your IQ is no better than a kerbau!!!

  14. #14 by Jong on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 11:12 am

    So the Prime Minister gives the highly respected former Lord President Sultan Azlan Shah, Sultan of Perak a snub? Terlebih dah!

  15. #15 by sheriff singh on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 11:22 am

    Only 1,000 lawyers are attending the conference so it is not a “majority” as per Nazri’s definition. Possibly the “same” 1,000 “crazy” ones who made the recent march and who are “not capable” of intellectual discourse according to him.

    After all, Nazri sees himself above all these crazy people as per his Sunday interview in the press. Yes, he’s the fool.

    Pak Lah got cold feet as he was expecting to be grilled by these “crazy” lawyers and the press should he turn up. His vocabulary and knowledge is limited to the Hadhari thing, “power sharing”, the definition of “Corridor” and turning a blind eye and closing the other.

  16. #16 by sheriff singh on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 11:32 am

    Still can’t fathom why they were both invited in the first place.

    Next time, don’t bother la. There are more eminent people around. Besides, the Bar Council shouldn’t politicise their events and functions by inviting politicians as this can be construed as being anti-government and being opposition stooges (as per Nazri).

  17. #17 by Bigjoe on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 11:43 am

    He is avoiding this like a plague. Lets face, he think its opening up a can of worms if he have a Royal Commission the extend of which he cannot control. Its why he will never agree to it. The scrutiny could wreck havoc to UMNOputras like a sledgehammer..

    I am most curious as what the UMNO ultras will do in the UMNO GA. Anyone know how to get the news online when it happens? Without TV coverage, they will go crazy to fight for attention for the coming GE…

  18. #18 by k1980 on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 12:11 pm

    The PM is not boycotting the Law Conference, it’s just because his monthly overseas holiday is due. He’s more into yachting than sleeping during conferences

  19. #19 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 12:17 pm

    “//…Still can’t fathom why they were both invited in the first place. Next time, don’t bother la. There are more eminent people around…//…” – sheriff singh

    They should invite them lah. This is what we call “constructive engagement” like the way ASEAN is supposed to engage the Myanmese Generals. The bar Council believes that those who have neither knowledge of nor respect for the Rule of Law and legal institutions should be constructively engaged in dialogue and exchange of perspectives to bridge the gap rather than shunned. Besides Sarawak Attorney-General Datuk J.C. Fong, who will discuss the continued practice of not allowing peninsula lawyers to work in Sabah and Sarawak in his talk “The Constitution — A Framework for a Sound Federal-State Relationship”, the other minister, besides Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who has had legal training, Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil Badawi will give a special address on gender. Our Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan will speak on “200 Years of Policing and 50 Years of Independence — The Royal Malaysian Police Experience, The Way Forward”.

    I think they should also invite Dato’ Dr Rais Yatim who had done his Doctorate thesis on the rule of law and executive power as well.
    All these people should be made to account and justify what they’re doing in the government through the well publicized Conference.

  20. #20 by k1980 on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 12:45 pm

    Law Conference he won’t attend-lah, but this one below he sure will participate

  21. #21 by Rocky on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 2:17 pm

    Dr.Rais Yatim – good idea Jeffrey. The man is a better lawyer than Nazri and talks sense. Hope the bar council do that.

  22. #22 by boh-liao on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 2:34 pm

    Where got judicial crisis? Where got constitutional crisis?

    Also, where got 14th Malaysian Law Conference 2007?

  23. #23 by Cinapek on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 3:41 pm

    Aiyah, Law Conference only in KL. ECER opening in Trengganu. Can use new aeroplane to fly there and back. Somemore, if talk about pisang goreng story, the simple folks in Trengganu will applaud his intellect. If talk same thing at Law Conference might kena laugh at. Somemore speak after the Sultan of Perak, a former Lord President. Tough act to follow. Lastly for sure you lawyer buggers will want to embarass me and ask tough questions. Trengganu safer.

  24. #24 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 4:10 pm

    As expected De facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz is at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference to argue the government’s case.

    The following is update from Malaysiakini’s report under caption “Nazri shoots down Bar’s views at law confab” by
    Soon Li Tsin Oct 29, 07 2:16pm


    The Bar Council President S Ambiga said the Judicial crisis in 1988 had eroded public confidence in the judiciary. Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak said public perception of the judiciary mattered. “The principal quality that the judiciary must possess is impartiality. It means that judges are not only free from influence of external forces but also of one another,” he added.

    However, Nazri told 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.

    “They (Bar Council) are talking from a legal point of view (but) we (the government) run a country. We’re looking from the summit of the mountain and they are looking (from) their eye level.”

    The Bar president also called for the abolition of laws allowing for detention without trial, and revocation of emergency proclamations and emergency ordinances.

    Ambiga also called for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and Sedition Act 1948 as they have “outlived their use”.

    Responding, Nazri maintained that these laws were still needed to keep peace and stability in the country.

    “There are laws that seem to be outdated but the peace and stability that you experience now is very much because of the fact that we have to stop some of the people raising emotional, racial issues,” he countered. It is not without a cost you experience the stability now. I still maintain that we still need these laws.”

    There are hackeyed arguments from Nazri (used since TDM’s time). Thought he would come with something new. So far the engagement seems to be at cross purposes.

  25. #25 by smeagroo on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 5:04 pm

    And i thot the laucnh of ECER was planned way ahead. HOw can the PM’s aide not notify him or others of his packed schedule?

  26. #26 by Jimm on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 5:06 pm

    “They (Bar Council) are talking from a legal point of view (but) we (the government) run a country. We’re looking from the summit of the mountain and they are looking (from) their eye level.”

    NA’s statement seems to tell rakyat that the BAR are different category of people that don’t have views like the government.
    So, what the point of having lawyers when the MPs are virtually above the law.

  27. #27 by Jimm on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 5:13 pm

    Very soon, his statement will applies to the Rulers too…
    Because the Rulers only sees what is in their state only and not as a country as whole.

  28. #28 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 6:56 pm

    Aiyo, in light of the Postscript, we have to take back what we said about him not daring to officiate the conference of legal luminaries. :)

  29. #29 by boh-liao on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 7:25 pm

    If only our government were more liberal in allowing citizens to have peaceful mass rallies to express their frustrations, rather than using FRU and mata-mata to suppress people’s desire to voice their opinions, a lot more peaceful mass rallies would be held (just like in Thailand) and a lot more lawyers and non-lawyers would participate in them.

    Hopefully, our government would not interfere on 10 Nov 2007.

  30. #30 by undergrad2 on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 7:33 pm

    PM by not coming out early enough and by allowing his Minister or Ministers to make statements on behalf of the government, has created the mess which he now faces personally. His withdrawal at the last minute besides being a source of embarassment merely shows once again he has allowed circumstances to have control over him. There is once again a failure of leadership here.

    More than that it is a slap in the face of the royal dignitaries and other distinguished Malaysians who have devoted much of their lives in the service of their country – and whose services have been publicly acknowledged by the government.

    This PM has blown every chance he was given to correct the disastrous course he has set this country towards.

  31. #31 by undergrad2 on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 7:34 pm

    What speech can be expected of the Prime Minister in the context of a formal dinner thrown at the last minute to make up for the embarassment??

  32. #32 by HJ Angus on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 8:55 pm

  33. #33 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 10:23 pm


    Quite right, what you said.

  34. #34 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 October 2007 - 11:16 pm

    Your readers may be interested in what Lim Kean Chye (LKC) said 14th Malaysian Law Conference.

    [LKC is a retired senior lawyer considered one of the finest advocate in court Malaysia ever had. His late father was Lim Cheng Ean, a Cambridge-trained lawyer and a legislative councillor in the 1930s, his brother Lim Kean Siew (MCA chieftain in Penang), another distinguished lawyer in Penang recently passed away; his sister PG Lim also a famous lawyer and former diplomat. Contempt of court for LKC was not the usual contempt of court adjudged by the judge of a lawyer; to LKC, it is his contempt of the judge – he would throw his tantrums and books and walk away from the court leaving the judge terrified – and get away with it!]

    The following was reported in Malaysiakini by Fauwaz Abdul Aziz on
    Oct 29, 07 7:52pm, which I have condensed & given excerpts here for the benefit of readers who are not subscribers and hence could not access to the link directly –

    Former chief justice Eusoff Chin was immediately attacked for much criticised 2000 decision on the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit (which YB had once highlighted in this blog).

    At 88 years old, LKC just let fly. He called the Federal Court’s decision led by Eusoffe Chin on Adorna Properties as “stupid”. “To put it in a nutshell, the case made a laughing stock of our judiciary. The case had destroyed much of the credibility that the judiciary had enjoyed among foreign investors in the protection of the rights of property own,” he said.

    In 2000, then-CJ Chin had controversially overruled the Court of Appeal and awarded a piece of land to Adorna Properties despite it being fraudulently gotten from Boonsom – the registered landowner – through forgery.

    At the heart of the trial was whether Adorna case was to be categorised under clauses sub sections (2) or (3) of Section 340 of the National Land Code.

    LKC said that “plain English” dictated that neither clause could be mistaken for the other.

    “Section 340 (2) says you have no title if you bought from a forger. That’s the end of it. “But if A buys from a forger, and sells to B – an innocent man – sub-section (3) protects you. The second buyer (B) is protected,” said LKC.

    He argued that the Adorna decision – which involved a buyer getting the property directly from a forger – should be come under sub-section 2 of the land code instead of sub-section 3.

    [Jeffrey: Coming under subsection 2 means the buyer who buys direct from a forger does not get a good title unlike the second buyer from such a first buyer from the forger. Eusoffe Chin interpreted such the other way around to say first buyer got the protection of god title even though he directly bought from the forger].

    LKC said that “plain English” dictated that neither sub-clause could be mistaken for the other.

    He took the opportunity to lambast judges, many of whom have ruled according to Eusoffe Chin’s judgment in the Adorna Boonsom case.

    LKC continued: “The former judge (NS) Chan had said it … he said of another court … they’re stupid, they don’t understand the English language.”

    According to LKC, the judges had failed to realise the true spirit and intentions behind the principle stare decisis and instead followed blindly the precedent dictated by peer or higher courts.

    “To them, stare decisis means ‘obey the boss’ even though you are of the same rank but you’re slightly older and appointed earlier than you.

    “Stare decisis doesn’t mean that. Stare decisis came about out of respect – you like the judgment written by a judge or by three or four judges, (which are) full of learning and of wisdom, and full of justice.

    “But if that court doesn’t deserve your respect, how does the principle of stare decisis apply? To me, it’s very clear. If there is an injustice, you don’t follow it,” said LKC.

    On a related matter, LKC also expressed disappointment at de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz who had said he was the minister for current Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in denying on his behalf that the latter was involved in the Lingam tape controversy.

    “Does it not make explicit that the chief justice is under him? Forget res judicata. Forget obeying judges. Next time you have a problem, go to the minister and he will settle it there and then”, he said.

  35. #35 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 4:46 am

    Jeffery, I’m not familiar with the NLC or the ambit of S. 340.

    Under common law, only a purchaser for value, in good faith and without notice gets a good title. The problem here is the rogue has long left the scene when a forgery is discovered, and the court is left with the unenviable task of having to do equities between two innocent parties. Whichever side the court chooses, an innocent party has to bear the loss – normally it is the transferee who has to suffer. Why?? Why, because land law in Malaysia has been codified and the onus is on the transferee to show that he has satisfactorily discharged his statutory duties under the NLC – a burden which is not easily discharged.

    I am not familiar with the case you mentioned at all beyond the fact that the decision in the case is highly controversial. I do not know where the chips fall in the light of my comments. But it would appear that the weight of professional opinion is against the judge in that case – and this, I find is not surprising.

    I do not know where my comments

  36. #36 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 4:48 am

    I do not know where my opinion falls – on the side of the transferor or the transferee.

  37. #37 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 6:05 am

    Re: Adorna Boonsom Case

    If popular opinion is that the decision in this case has gone against the intent of Parliament, the reasoning convoluted etc, then the way forward is for Parliament to amend the relevant provision. I suspect Parliament is not about to do so in this case.

  38. #38 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 8:17 am

    Our National Land Code (“NLC”) is based on Australian Torren’s system of property registration. Central to it is the concept of “indefeasibility” of property rights once they are registered, to which section 340 relates….. “Indefeasibility” means “cannot be defeated” once registered.

    Once a fraudster or forger enters the scene, there are always two innocent parties – the original owner and a 3rd party buyer fighting over one property – after the fraud/forger has long left the scene with the fruits of his successful deception. And the question is who gets the property. Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd was the immediate 1st buyer from the forger of title, Boonsom Boonyanit, the original registered owner not aware of his title being transferred away to Adorna due to forgery. Both claimed rights too property registration.

    But back to the question : who gets property in the fall out, where do the chips fall, so to speak??

    If one falls back on common law, both the new bona fide buyer for value and the owner are both cheated and hence innocent but to resolve the problem, the property goes to the one more innocent of the two : the less innocent takes the loss. This necessarily implies that the circumstances must be investigated as to who is more or less innocent.

    But common law does not apply once the NLC applies in case the property is governed by it. It is so governed if a title subsists in relation to the property, registrability of title/property rights being prime eligibility of NLC applicablility. & governance.

    Section 340 of the NLC cuts the Gordian knot. It says you don’t have to investigate. It draws the line. It presumes between that the 1st buyer (from the fraudster/forger) and the owner, the latter is always more innocent and the former less for failing to check the title properly before he buys from the frauster/forger.

    Such a buyer comes under sub section 2 of 340 (an exception to indefeasibility). Even though such a so called “bona fide purchaser for value” gets his property rights registered – even though registration under Torrens based NLC confers “indefeasibility” as an incidence of registration – in this instance indefeasibility does not, as an exception, immediately kick in but is “deferred” under sub section 3 to another subsequent innocent 2nd buyer from such a first buyer (buying from the frauster/forger), if any!

    Lim Kean Chye says one cannot possibly mix up the language of sub section 2 and 3 which properly delineates how indefeasibility of registration does not apply in first instance but deferred to the second, and how our courts had always accepted this position/interpretation until Eusoffe Chin who, in his infinite wisdom, had interpreted the other way around to decide that immediate buyer from fraudster/forger Adorna Properties enjoyed superior indefeasibility of registration rights over original owner Boonsom Boonyanit, thus taking a wrong course in law, which all the ‘machai’ judges coming after also followed blindly based on the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis).

    When in relation to such judgment, Kean Chye said one making it must be either bereft of understanding of plain English or stupid, now what is the third possibility which he has deliberately left opened for interpretation without mention?

    And what is the common factor between then CJ Eusoffe Chin & present one? Its public controversies and what again is the common link in two public controversies beleaguering 2 CJs separated by time and space?

    You are entitled to draw your own conclusion. But somebody supposedly erudite in legal system still maintains that there is no judicial crisis.

    Sultan Azlan Shah said in the conference that “nothing destroys more the confidence of the general public or the business community has in the judiciary than the belief that the judge was biasd when he decided a case, or that the judge would not be independent where powerful individuals or corporations are the litigants before him… The Bar and its leadership must ensure there is a high standard of integrity and ethics among its members. There have been allegations against some lawyers that ….they have attempted to choose the judges or courts for their cases to be heard so as to obtain a favourable decision in their client’s favour. This is a serious interference with the administration of justice and process of law”. (se trodays front page report in The Sun).

    I say we clean up the judiciary first. If we have judges that cannot be bought, such black sheep lawyers will desist from trying to choose the judges or courts for their cases.

    To use an unfortunate analogy, a society cannot complain about there being too many customers looking for commercial sex and services of prostitutes if it does nothing to discourage people from becoming prostitutes and openly advertising their trade without sanctions.

    In our world there are more people who are prostituting the value to do right and just for the blandishment of money. Once they “made it” I suppose they care little their names are mentioned everyday in papers or blogs associated with calumny and ignominy and disgrace.

    These people – you will know them – are very silent. They slink in the hole somewhere where the only solace is the enjoyment of the fruits of their ill-gotten gains.

  39. #39 by Godfather on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 8:26 am

    Corridors, Constitutional Crisis, Corruption, Crooks and Clowns…..what’s the difference ?

  40. #40 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 9:02 am

    Correk, correk, correk…

  41. #41 by Jimm on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 9:24 am

    Well, BN knew that they have to win this coming GE in the big way and at all cost. Those dogs and puppies that benefitted by the ELITE groups are put on full alert and attentive to ensure all preparation and results of each selected constitutions are ‘sure win’.
    Now, most of the professional voters have been deployed to their designated constitutions and briefing to all civil servants have been secretly arranged.
    With so much funds going out at all angles and to all levels, I believe this GE will be the dirtiest ever in Malaysia history.

    Did you noticed the Police statement over 10th Nov gathering yesterday over our ‘corrupted’ media broadcast ?
    This guy have given that ‘innocent’ approach warning to anyone that intended to attend this gathering that police will catch them as illegal gathering because there are no permit issued.
    Come on … where will there be a permit issue for these type of peaceful gathering.
    To put matters into prospective, we can check the police record over the issuing of permit for gatherings nationally, the reocrds are going to shock us all, the ratio of approval and the time frame to approve one from BN compared to BA.
    Dogs that have no good family roots and no soul living in their bodies.

  42. #42 by Toyol on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 11:46 am

    PM and company only knows how to bluff common folk…when faced with intellects, chicken out. That’s the spirit of our leaders. Still want to vote them? Think of the long term consequences and your children’s future.

  43. #43 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 12:18 pm

    The difference is that some are “little” godfathers while others are little Napoleons.

  44. #44 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 - 10:00 pm

    “There have been allegations against some lawyers that ….they have attempted to choose the judges or courts for their cases to be heard so as to obtain a favourable decision in their client’s favour. This is a serious interference with the administration of justice and process of law”. (se trodays front page report in The Sun).”

    This is common knowledge among lawyers for many years. They choose which judges they would like to go to to have their cases heard – if they can, and the politically connected among these lawyers can and almost without exception.

    What message does it send to our young lawyers??

  45. #45 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 November 2007 - 2:56 pm

    ‘The PM has blown every chance he was given to correct the disastrous course he has set this country towards.’.undergrad 2
    But then undergrad 2, this guy in the first place is no prime ministerial material —has no learning (i won’t term him learned for the simple motion of going thro university),no knowledge,no wisdom,no conviction and most of all hasn’t got what it takes to be a prime minister!
    In fact the course that this country has been set towards is most likely set by somebody.So how my good man??

  46. #46 by AhPek on Thursday, 1 November 2007 - 3:56 pm

    And if I may add further, he doesn’t lead, he is led!!
    The only thing he is capable of doing is to mouth homilies like :-
    (1) Work with me and not work for me.

    (2) I am a Prime Minister of all Malaysians.

    (3) I am fair. I am always been fair to all

    (4) We’re not in the business of cheating.

    (5) Malaysia has first world infrastructure but third world maintainence.

    However I am sure he hasn’t got the brains to realise that if he hasn’t got the gumption to put into actions what is said it is far better not to utter them at all!!!

  47. #47 by Tulip Crescent on Sunday, 4 November 2007 - 5:30 pm

    Basically, Eusoffe Chin cannot distinguish between fraud and forgery.

    Forgery can never vest title in any property. Full stop. Upon a finding of fact that forgery exists, the vesting of title is set aside or annulled.

    But Eusoffe Chin probably did it for reasons best known to himself.

    The law is still good law. The Act is still a good Act. It is the stupidity of the Judge in interpreting the section when applying the Act that is wrong.

    Away with such Judges, howsoever high they may ave climbed. They are nothing but rogues garbed in the robes of Judges. As someone said, they are not men of the cloth but men in the cloth.

    Beware …

You must be logged in to post a comment.