This thing about “green light” from outside & above.

If green light endorses ‘fresh party polls’ ;

if fresh party polls and their anticipated results are expected to favour Chua Soi Lek and Liow Tiong Lai more than Ong Tee Keat;

if between Chua & Liow, it means Chua has the lead to be No. 1 in MCA;

if its further assumed that the No. 1 of MCA were ordinarily entitled as part of patronage system, to a cabinet post (though this is not necessarily always the case as its PM/UMNO President’s preogative to decide on cabinet minister;

what is the implication of 1 Malaysia Cabinet of an Islamic country accepting the MCA No. 1 as a minister in light of his earlier scandal???

Wouldn’t the “above” be embarrassed if the MCA No. 1 lobbies for a cabinet position after winning polls?

To say “no” is to go against tradition and facade of power sharing; to say “yes” is embarrassing, not to mention alot of NGOs including perkasa may protest.

So why does the above give the green light that may likely create a train of events leading to it being in a dilemma?

You can control someone – if he has a scandal not one knows, and you threaten to divulge or leak it if he does not toe the line!

You can’t control someone on a scandal that is already public knowledge and in spite of that got majority support in MCA!

The argument – that scandal enhances control and improve insurance to control – put forth just does not hold water when scandal is already known nationally & internationally!

The Russians wanted to blackmail Sukarno by having “a Russian swallow” to seduce Sukarno and the Russians told him that if he did not do their bidding they would expose him.

Sukarno was already well known amongst his countrymen for his voracious appetite for women.

He told the Russians – please make it public, at least my countrymen will now know that I even scored with your Russian women as well (added to the long list)!!

///NO, Jeffrey, i am not insulting Godfather, i am insulting you. You got it all wrong.///

However it was never my position that the MCA’s man with a scandal (esp when publicly known) could by that fact of the scandal already known be controlled by UMNO. This is where I disagreed with Godfather’s interpretation – that it would.

I also said “it need not be a taint to be controlled : greed for positions, crumbs in gravy train suffice” – which is in line/parallel with what you said about “To all the intelligent asses out there. MCA is controlled EVEN NONE of its leaders has any scandal…UMNO only need stupid, greedy and corrupted leaders from among the non Malays to give them the multiracial and cosmopolitan image to the world……….Intelligent ass, got it?”.

So who is the ass whose understanding of the issue is to insult me on a position put forward by another (ie Godfather), and then turn around to say you are insulting me (when my position is parallel with yours)based on a lack of understanding of what as being exchanged/discussed/argued earlier between Godfather and me ?

You are too quick to use the word “ass” on others even before you understood the exchange. Thats the problem of puting your own head far up your ass for too long that you keep uttering that word!

Winston, your comments #49, although oral sex is punishable offence (unnatural sex), and an offence has no limitation period, and is a function of prosecutorial discretion, they -powers that be – can’t explain why action was not taken when he admitted to it 2 years ago in Jan 2008 unless one deems it that prosecutorial discretion was exercised (then) in his favour having regard to fact that he was more the victim of a consensual situation with a personal willing partner whose privacy was invaded; also there was sufficient punishment from shame when he voluntarily owned up and resigned from various positions. In the history of prosecutions here, they don’t prosecute on oral sex per se unless its accompanies with some other reprehensible criminal behaviour like violence, rape robbery and so on.

The threat of the possibility of them (authorities) prosecuting later is slim, and mitigated by the onus being thrown on them to explain why they did not take action 2 years ago in Jan 2008 and creates the adverse presumption that they are keeping it for balckmail.

This kind of thing, once publicly known, and no investigation even needed to account for any delay due to the actor’s own admission, the authorities have to make decision to prosecute or not and once it is not done, it is as good as treating matter is closed because they just simply cannot explain why they decide to prosecute much much later!

We know in this country everything about who one knows and the lack of any need for Prosecutor to account how he exercises discretion, whether to drop or continue and the type/quality of reasons given for eg two reporters of the Al-Islam magazine.

Yet there is a line that has not been crossed: some alleged offence committed, sensationalised in public, everyone knows its an offence, there is no need to even investigate the offence because the wrong doer (a prominent person) has admitted to it, no action was taken by way of exercise of prosecutorial discretion for as long as two years (which reasonably) raises the assumption of finality on part of wrong doer of how that discretion has been exercised – in his favour – and then mysteriously, after that the discretion was (assumed) exercised, to re-activate the nmatter and charge that person (for what ever reasons, political personal or whatever).

There is such a thing as finality, in such matters of prosecutorial discretion of not keeping an ax over a man’s head for ever./

It is different if the case is pending investigation. Not enough evidence even after 2 yaers, evidence found on the 4th year so you charge.

But where’s there’s no need for investigation or pending investigation – where the evidence is for all to see on video on the Net and where the actor comes out to say, thats me, and you can charge him immediately – and you don’t? Not just two years – lets extend the argument to (say) 8 years, and all of a sudden out of the blue you decide to charge him? You think you can do that without explaining why the long lapse and then the sudden reactivation ? Won’t it be malicious prosecution?

One can say Boleh land is different, don’t follow rules, Ok if so orove me wrong and cite one or two of such cases, in the Malaysian Context, where in parallel situtation, this has happened – please enlighten me which one or two cases (where there’s no need to investigate, a high profile case that everyone knows an offence is committed, no problem on evidence, yet the prosecution has delayed for no apparent reason for 2 years and equally for no apparent reasons re-activated prosecution?

Every prosecutor has inherent discretion to prosecute or not: don’t get me wrong that I am saying that execise of discretion may notr be influenced by extraneous political considerations . It may well be the case. Friends of powerful people not prosecuted. (Political opponents instead are).

However once that discretion is exercised when not pursuing a case like Chua’s (where one looks at the particulars of that offence – ie consensual sex involving oral (carnal) which is techincally an offence but as a matter of discretion not exercised at all against rest of populace doing the same thing except they’re not having their privacy violated like Chua), can you keep it in your file for another decade and then spring him a charge?

Perhaps you not grasping there’s such an idea of finality in prosecutorial discretion, known or reasonably expected after 2 years lapse (in circumstances where offence is clear, whole public know about, it’s even admitted to and there’s no need for further investigation to justify delay in not prosecuting).

Lim Kam Put : your comments show again you have not understood what I said. Think abit before you comment. I have no reason to take it upon myself to explain further.

Anwar’s case is an example viewed by many as improper exercise of prosecutorial discretion in sense that hardly anyone else (in absence of other aggravated accompanying offences like robbery/rape accopmpanyinmg it) is prosecuted for sodomy (but the opposition head). Still they could argue come forth and argue that in other cases not prosecuted it is because no one came forth to complain about being buggered but here there is Saiful giving evidence….Again here one can counter by saying there’s alleged improper exercise of prosecutorial discretion because one ought not to throw the charge when evidence of essential ingredient of penetration is lacking based on initial 3 medical reports.

Anwar’s case is not however comparable to Chua’s case because here the moment the alleged offence/Saiful’s complain was publicly known, investigations were launched and prosecutorial discretion was known made to charge Anwar, and he was charged….

For Anwar’s case to be used as a point of argument to rebut what I said, it must hypothetically be parallel to Chua Soi Lek’s case in the following:-

· Anwar was caught in video with Saiful doing the illicit Act;

· Or even if not, investigations and medical report show overwhelmingly there’s penetration; or

· Anwar says publicly “yes I did it, it was consensual”,

leading to circumstances showing that there is no need at all to further investigate/prove and establish “who did it “, the public also all know the act is an offence opening the way to immediate preferring of a charge and prosecution– and yet most important:

after all these and Saiful’s report/complaint, nothing is done by authorities, two, three or five years pass and all of the sudden the AG got up on the wrong side of the bed (or for whatever other reason) he throws the charge at Anwar. Can this be done without an explanation? Has it ever been done in the past, crossing this line?

So when I ask where are the one or two cases showing such a line has been crossed, you surely cannot be that naive to think that your citation of Anwar’s case, is a parallel one in circumstances to Chua Soi Lek’s 2 year lapse of prosecution to show how improper execise of prosecutorial discretion of Anwar’s circumstances prove the same may be done in Chua Soi Lek’s case – when circumstances wise its like comparing ornage with an apple.

One has also the look at the nature of crime. Oral sex/sodomy are archaic laws which whilst exist in books are almost never actively enforced unless they are aggravated by reason of other serious offences accompanying the proscribed act eg rape, robbery, committing it on underage persons. So where there are no aggravated circumstances exist, when one exercises prosecutorial charges not to charge – even if all evidence is there to do so immediately including an admission – the public can understand, and conversely cannot understand why after exercising such discretion not to charge for 2, 3, 5 years, some suddenly re-activate the charge.

This does not apply to a crime like say robbery or murder considered heinous by public and known to be actively prosecuted wth laws against enforced cconsistently all the time.

In these cases an exceptional lapse in that consistency – as when prosecution does nothing after 2 years or even 10 years or more and then all of sudden reactivate it – public would not question such flip flop in exercise of prosecutorial discretion because by nature they are heinous, not forgivable – not parallel to consensual oral sex/sodomy which though the laws still say they are a crime, the laws are honoured more in hypocrisy of such cases being overlooked & not being enforced in relation to general populace (except for very selective cases involving aggravated accompanying circumstances earlier mentioned).

Lim Kam Put,

Thats why I say you butt in without understanding whats being discussed.

The statement “….if there is a line to be crossed, it will be crossed…” assumes the authorities have no line, follows no law, and cares no limitations whatsoever.

On that premise there it is nothing to discuss anything here or anywhere else for Kit or us to blog on rationale, right or wrong and thats the end of the matter. What we are doing here then?

Then the position – that with the Malaysian Govt ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE having no line or limits – if that were the position put forth there is no need for further argument here because right at the outset in my posting #8 I have already qualified “The threat of the possibility of them (authorities) prosecuting later is SLIM, and MITIGATED by the onus being thrown on them to explain why they did not take action 2 years ago in Jan 2008 and creates the adverse presumption that they are keeping it for blackmail.

The words SLIM & MITIGATED imples, if you don’t understand the words, there is no suggestion of impossibility of anything done by Malaysian authorities. They mean the unlikelihood in Chua’s case having regard to all circumstances of his case (already discussed) in contrast/comparison to Anwar’s case for leverage to be made out of Chua’s case.

The simple thing and it takes so long for you to understand and argue all over the place : no wonder a past commentator SpeakUp mentioned it was a waste of time and a tax of patience to address any of your obtuse comments!
if thats the premise…..

///Your possibility of “slim and mitigated” prosecution is based on some fanciful logics which do not make sense to me given the pattern of behaviour of this government./// – LimKamPut.

It is not ‘fanciful logics’ because as a matter of practical experience, that line (of exercising prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute based on the extenuating circumstances of Chua Soi Lek’s case] has never been crossed before by Malaysian govt, judging from the fact that no one can cite a parallel case of like circumstances where Prosecutor re-activated a case after a long lapse and yet escapes being challenged whether in court or in public relam. The case of Anwar cited as been differentiated as not been alike. So what fanciful logics is that when there has been no case before like that? And even then I did not discount all possibility.

Anything is possible in this world especially with regards the Malaysian govt, but having said that, I have also mentioned the likelihood of the govt’s crossing the line on this issue of finality of prosecutor’s discretion of which Chua is entitled to rely after 2 years lapse is “slim” & “mitigated”. The words by their ordinary meaning mean possible but not likely as to constitute a factor of indeterminate leverage (without finality) by Chua on him on the part of govt.

“Crossing the line” here is on the government’s part in a finality on Prosecutor’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion, either to prosecute or forget about it, in this case in reference to the latter. It does not bear reference to what you said – “CSL will not be charged if he does not “cross the line”, in that sense. If if Chua does so (crossing the line in your sense) the govt would have crossed its line if it starts prosecuting after a long lapse of times. Whilst possible its not likely because it has to justify and explain why it does so.

It seems that you always want to butt in – and argue, if possible criticisze or insult – in a discussion where discussants are proceeding already on the fourth floor whilst you still tyrailing at the basement of the building/structure of what is being discussed.

I have made no claim to any “monopoly to wisdom” but by the way your attack others comments from the vantage point of the basement you certainly have the monopoly of obtuseness- and silliness, your thoughts like a concoction of mixed ingredients in a wide but shallow plate of your mind which easily spills over their obnoxious contents the moment the plate is jarred by the slightest movement of the the base on which the plate of your thoughts/prejudices comfortably sits.

///if there is a line to be crossed, it will be crossed. It does not matter whether or not there is a report made or otherwise///

Police Report is only one out of the many other differences. In Anwar’s case the moment the offence is known, the offence is investigated and charge is preferred. In latter’s case (even with admission of guilt), no mention of any action to which Chua is entitled to rely that prosecutorial discretion has been exercised in his favour.

(In all other cases eg Perwaja and connected people, they are different; there are protracted investigations but no prosecution because they say investgations uncover no solid proof that can stand in court of law, therefore no charge).

This is very different in Chua’s case. the proof is there; he even admits to it; everyone (public) knows about the case and technicality of the offence. Yet two years lapse, and continuing: is there no presumption of finality to hanging a guillotine over someone’s head, that they can, for no rhyme and reason, simply after 20 years re-activate & throw this charge of oral sex against Chua when he is (say) 90 years old by then (because then he writes against the govt like ex Justice NH Chan?) You know the silliness of that scenario?
The govt for all its arbitrariness in doing things – you cite to me 1 or 2 cases like & parallel to Chua’s, that they (authorities) have ever re-activated a charge contrary to presumption of finality.

I am challenging to cite one or 2 cases parallel to Chua’s case because we’re talking of the same thing – the “pattern of behaviour of this government”. In spite of this “arbitrary” pattern that we all know has it crossed the line of reactivating a charge on a known crime requiring no further proof after a long lapse of no mention of investigation/prosecution?

If you can cite one such case of parallel circumstances as chua I will concede that my argument of “slim” possibility becomes no more slim but even probable as a leverage.

rreposting : the basement is where its situated – the collective and final depository, from which all waste, effuses, refuse, etc from the top flow down and are deposited.

Re #38, thats why I say it is possible (slim chances) but not likely, not likely because for all the pattern of behaviour involving arbitrariness, selective prosecution etc that all can see, even now, the line of re-activating something like Chua’s case over a long time/silence/inaction will be the “first” crossing even the line of perceived arbitrariness. Arguing further on this is pedantic. When drawing a human it appears to one sucjh as you one must draw the intestines, the warts moles the shingles and the piles for you to come to awareness (even if you were to be gracious enough to admit it) that the drawing is about a person!

///For me if you want to draw a human, an outline will do, it is for you that we need to draw intestines, moles and what not.”

If mere reversing what I said about you (to apply to me) is the best you could offer by way of response to my posting #40, then there’s no need for me to comment further to hog the blog’s bandwidth.

Its a kind of lazy copying by rote what the other said, and then just switching expediently the positions. Why Cintanegara & Kassim samat can do better. Ha ha ha.