Good that Goh Keat Peng gives due apologies to this much maligned marsupial.
Just because they can jump 5-10 feet, they are likened to people who make great leaps of logic – legal or otherwise – which is perceived resulting in wrong conclusions and in cases of trial injustice.

Appropriately also unlike other fourlegged mammals, kangaroos cannot walk backwards: therefore human kangaroos also cannot, “kostan” to correct mistakes they make. That’s make the farce! Think about it,

I have said before and will say again: think (strategically) of what one’s to achieve. Don’t be ambivalent. Is this whole thing to uphold heterosexual norms or moral code? I don’t think so. I see homosexuals, bisexuals lesbians transsexual everywhere, kept harmless from any official harassment. And when one selectively chooses, the prime witness contradicts the charge. He says he is coerced. The charge says its consensual. Which is which? Then whereas customarily one looks for proof of penetration here, one terbalik looks for DNA/sperm to prove penetration.

The whole world is watching whether we’re civilized abiding by rule of law or hopping around in Frontier like Kangaroos. Surely if sodomy I were a debacle, then II is not to be trifled with, it can turn out a bigger one, unless one’s very sure of the strategic focus and objective. Is it to embarrass or to really punish/convict? It cannot be neither here or there. The latter option is point of concern: waves of sympathy makes the one on the dock twice martyred and next GE precarious. If the former objective, its not really working….

Ultimately it is the Court of Public & World’s Opinion that will be final arbiter. So first thing first, if it were my call, whatever Defence wants, I give lah! This gives good impression. Don’t forget what Mat Zain Ibrahim just disclosed has direct bearing!

What’s the problem of clinical notes if Truth & Justice for the defendant in whose favour the system is supposed to be tilted were the prime considerations and not some fancy idea of playing fair referee to tactical strategies of two proxy boxers (legal eagles) in the adversarial ring? It’s missing (as usual) the Woods for the Trees, so to speak, by which comparison chances one will lose his way.

People downline esp have no inkling of whether they should look at trees or whole forest geography. They look only at themselves – how they fare, what they say or what they do, personal success or failure as they see it without quite understanding the bigger picture of what is the real success or failure of the Original Venture or Project and its RoadMap, so to speak, when it was first decided to be launched with considerable political risks of where fall out will eventually be.