So this nails the PM, AG & IGP as liars together with the whole BN cabinet.

Follow Soi Lek`s example, Samy told
Fauwaz Abdul Aziz | Jan 7, 08 4:57pm
Some 50 disgruntled shareholders of MIC’s troubled investment arm Maika Holdings held a brief but noisy protest outside the Kuala Lumpur Court complex calling for MIC president S Samy Vellu’s resignation.

http://malaysiakini.com/news/76775

All these years the BN have used the compliant AGs and IGPs to secure their power and feed BN corruption:

City deputy police chief SAC I Patrick Jiges Sijore said the organisers of the illegal assembly must be held liable for their actions.

“We cannot have people holding illegal assemblies in the city, disrupting public order and causing roads to be closed.”
http://suicidedoors.blogspot.com/2008/01/keeping-you-updated.html

Dark Horse: Good comment there.

I`m reminded of the definition of `negligence` i.e. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.

And then there was Sir Thomas More in `Man For All Seasons`:

More’s belief in the law remained steadfast even when it appeared that the law could reveal to be his downfall. More wants to find ways to hide behind the law for his safety’s sake. When discussing the Act of Supremacy, More states, “Supreme Head of the Church in England—‘so far as the law of God allows.’ How far the law of God does allow it remains a matter of opinion, since the Act doesn’t state it.”
He expects that with his knowledge of the law, he can find a way to take the oath and still have a humble conscience. More wants nothing more than to be protected under the law which he so religiously observed on a daily basis. However, More’s plan could be seen by many as being treasonous. Norfolk makes this very assumption, and when he questions More about it, More replies by saying, “The law requires more than an assumption; the law requires a fact.”
Again he sticks to the use of the law for his benefit. More will not change his views of the law, even when challenged by Roper. More questions Roper’s views of the law by saying, “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast- Man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down- and you’re just the man to do it- d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”

In the long run it is good if the indians get the perception they are now being victimised even more by the BN.

Chinese communist government will never sympathize on how Chinese Malaysians are ill-treated as second class citizen. – posted above

The Chinese Govt. is still laughing at the way a UMNO minister went to China to apologise for the Malay lady who was made to strip in a malaysian police station.
I don`t blame the Chinese govt for that. I too still laugh at it when it comes to mind.

It is laughable. A day after the Indian defence minister completes his trip to Malaysia, that country announces a ban on the intake of workers from India. Existing workers will be asked to return to India after their work permits expire. The Malaysian government took this decision—it claims—in late December 2007. It probably held back the announcement to ensure A K Antony’s visit took place. Yet, the timing of the announcement—a day after India agreed to train Malaysian air force pilots, among other things—should be embarassing for Mr Antony.

The Malaysian government took this decision—in all likelihood—as part of its clampdown on the movement among its ethnic Indian minority, who are demanding an end to systematic racial discrimination. The manner in which it treats its citizens is entirely its own business. But if Malaysia has the right to decide its own immigration policies, the ban adversely affects Indian nationals. For that reason, the Indian government must respond.

The ban on immigrant workers has become an additional sore point in India-Malaysia economic relations, the most visible of which was Malaysia’s holding up of an India-ASEAN preferential trade agreement blaming India’s customs duties on the import of palm oil. And even if Mr Antony and his Malaysian counterpart, Najib Razak, have announced an ‘elevation’ of defence co-operation, Kuala Lumpur has been less enthusiastic on India’s involvement in securing the Malacca straits.
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2008/01/08/look-east-and-frown-at-malaysia/

The Malaysian Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism said foreign priests already in the country have only been given six-month renewals and told they must leave after expiry.

Foreign priests already in the country have only been given six-month renewals and told they must leave after expiry, said the council’s president A Vaithilingam.

Seeking PM’s explanation

Vaithilingam said the restrictions mostly affected ethnic Indian Hindus, who have been at the centre of a discrimination row, and that there would now not be enough priests to conduct prayers.

“We want an explanation from the prime minister and the government on this,” Vaithilingam told AFP.

“Why are they carrying out the sudden action to restrict foreign priests from practicing in the country when there are millions of foreign workers who are allowed to work here,” he said.

Vaithilingam, who is also president of the leading Hindu organisation the Malaysian Hindu Sangam, said that about 200 Hindu priests were the majority of foreign clergy here, but that there are also some Buddhists and Taoists.

He said visas for temple musicians have also been reduced from one year to six months while temple sculptors have had their permits reduced from six months to one week.

“I am shocked because normally Immigration has a talk with us before changing any policy and this has happened without any discussion,” he said.

Immigration department officials confirmed that the visas issued to priests were being restricted but refused to give details.