I'm not a lawyer, but my sister is. I know what a tremendous embarrassment it must be to have such low-down scum in one's industry.
It has been suspected that the judiciary was tainted since ages past. Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy I, VK Lingam's judge-fixing and now the Perak MB's "rightful" appointment merely serve to confirm that.
But it's not just the concern of the lawyers. This sham of a judiciary is our personal problem as well!
How could we sit calmly and read the news, make some suitably disapproving noises with our respective tongues and go on with our lives??!!
Is it because we think we are too insignificant to ever undergo recourse to the courts of justice?
Will our lives be blissfully unaffected by the putrid stench of a tainted judiciary?
This issue should never have made its way to the judiciary in the first place.
If BN had just a remote drop of courage in itself, it would have called for elections so that the people could rightfully determine who they want in office.
Of course, you and I know that it would have flown into the hands of the Pakatan Rakyat, which is why they did not attempt it.
It saddens me (not for the first time) to note that people in high office could so easily be bought out by those who are obviously pure evil.
5 comments:
if ...IF only unanimous could be
anonymous !!
Blame it on Newton: a body at rest, stays at rest. Most people are like toads in kettle - we only react when the water boils, which by then, is too late.
Thank God we have people like you to open ours eyes.
I have a problem with the judgment.
1. the majority was because of three crossovers;
2. two of the crossovers are under investigation for corruption;
3. the third crossed over too soon after getting the seat to warrant belief that she had real problems with her party.
4. all three are socalled independents.
How can one be independent and yet be friendly enough to a particular party to be counted as directly contributing to the vote of that party?
How can assemblymen under investigation for corruption be qualified to sit in a state general assembly by judgment of a high court that presumably would be against corruption?
What was so wrong with the other party that the third crossed over so soon after getting her seat?
How did the royal interview really determine that the other party no longer commanded the majority?
Why did Zamry not answer the question from the press directly on the two crossovers when asked about it but instead mumbled about institutions?
and a few more questions...but i am hungry and no longer care.
Our institutions have crumbled.
They should have held elections. Then the voice of the people will be finally known. Now it's going to be state remaining split.
The last question: what's the big deal that Umno should have to employ such draconian tactic to wrestle back a state against the voting rights of its people?
But we already know that answer...
bye, crankster.
Perhaps, in a warped sense, there was, after all, a state assembly sitting on 5th February 2009.
It's the one initiated and made by the Perak royal house at the istana to facilitate a vote of no confidence.
Welcome to the new era of constitutional monarch-iness (sic), folks.
Anon - I suspect you have differing views from the unianimous five? :-)
T&C - that's true. We're also like rockets, we move when our ass is on fire!
Walla - I agree with you completely that those assemblymen under investigation should not be the determining factor of which political coalition should take over the state.
I'm sure it is much less complicated, much more cheap and certainly more logical to call for elections.
But then they'd lose.
Post a Comment