The above is an extract from an interview of a psychopathic and delusional old man by the Nikkei Asian Review yesterday. He said that he had never abused his power when he was the Prime Minister.
If you have a copy of Barry Wain’s ‘Malaysian Maverick‘ you can see the list of abuses that Mahathir had done during his premiership. And those are only the ones that Mr Wain had discovered.
Time Magazine quoted an economist at Morgan Stanley in Singapore as saying that the country might have lost as much as US$100 billion since the early 1980s to corruption. Under Mahathir’s 22 years term, there were monetary losses amounting to over at least hundred of billions of Ringgit and this excluded those unaccounted for, and irretrievable.
Another politician, Syed Husin Ali, whose party is now worshipping Mahathir said, “Petronas has neither been fully transparent nor accountable with how it spends its money, especially in aiding and abetting Tun Mahathir to indulge in unproductive construction of mega projects, to bail out ailing crony companies and corporate figures, and to involve itself in excessive and wasteful spending on celebrations and conferences.”
For the record, Mr Wain has never been sued by Mahathir. Neither has Mahathir’s foe-turned-best friend Lim Kit Siang been sued for his remarks on the former.
“If we examine the decade of the Mahathir administration, we will find that the scandals, unaccountability, the human rights violations and abuses of power have one common thread – to protect and further the economic interests of the ruling political elites. This necessitated a growing concentration of political power in the hands of the Executive and increasingly in the hands of the Prime Minister, at the expense of the fundamental constitutional principles of the Separation of Powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, the Independence of the Judiciary and the Rule of Law.
Under his political culture, the role of Law and Judges is not to ensure justice and protect human rights, but to protect the vested economic interests of the powers-that-be from expose and jeopardy.
Two-thirds parliamentary majority has become a blank cheque for abuses of power and human rights violations.”
Emperor Lim was notably vocal on the issues of the Forex scandal that all but wiped out our Bank Negara reserves and also the BMF scandal before he became the jockey that now rides on the political mule called Mahathir. But the things he wrote on Mahathir are still there waiting to be used against the latter should he (Mahathir) forget his current position – a mule.
As a matter of fact, Emperor Lim also has examples of abuse of power in relation to freedom of the press during Mahathir’s time – and I am not talking just about Ops Lallang.
So for Mahathir to claim that he never abused his power as the Prime Minister is an absolute farce. It only goes to show how desperate he is to paint a false picture of his past to the youngsters who were yet to be born when Mahathir had this country beneath his fists.
He thinks that the Pakatan will collectively agree to his ambitions of either putting his son as the Prime Minister or he become one himself based on his 22-year experience.
But we all know that no one in the Pakatan wishes to have another one term of Mahathir remembering what he was capable of. So they will just ride on his anger towards Najib Razak…like the old mule he is.
I have no respect for the perfidious people above. I have no respect for people who leave their party and form or join another and go against their former party.
Nor do I have respect for people who go back on their words after spending a lifetime making others believe those words.
Spineless. Principle-less.
Look at Mat Sabu for instance. Once he was speaking out loud against the Christians.
He even spoke against the proselytising of Muslims by Christian evangelists, giving speeches against the act.
Now he is subservient to the party that is run by evangelists – becoming their loyal dog that does their biddings.
Then you have this 92-year old man who once claimed that Anwar Ibrahim is too old to become a Prime Minister.
Suddenly he is thinking of becoming the Prime Minister again, after saying he’d never return to the Premier seat again.
Probably that is the reason he did not lift the “Anwar As The 7th PM” placard at the recent PKR convention and pretended he was takkng a video with his phone.
We are, I guess, living in the age of the auld lang swine.
Colonial passport for the colonised people of North Borneo
For the previous installment on the background, please click here.
In his book on Page 101, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan wrote that although there is no objection to Islam being the religion of the Federation there should not be a STATE RELIGION in North Borneo. Therefore, anything pertaining to Islam in the MALAYAN CONSTITUTION cannot be applied to NORTH BORNEO.
His grouse on this matter came about as a result of the late Tun Datu Mustapha expelling Christian priests from Sabah and accused both Tun Datu Mustapha and Datuk Harris Salleh of acting in such manner to strengthen their political position with the Federal government, therefore Islam should not be the religion of the state of Sabah.
The above controversial statement goes against the agreements reached as recorded by the Cobbold Commission, the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC) , and the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) in 1962.
According to the memorandum of the MSCC that was chaired by Donald A Stephens (later Chief Minister of Sabah, Tun Fuad Stephens) with representatives from Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo, the MSCC found that the acceptance of Islam as the religion of the Federation does not endanger religious freedom as evident on Page 120 of the MSCC memorandum dated 3 February 1962:
MSCC Memorandum dated 3 February 1962 PP 120MSCC Memorandum dated 3 February 1962 PP 120
The MSCC had scrutinised the position of Islam in respect of states other than the Malay States and found no objection was made against the then-present arrangement for Pulau Pinang and Melaka to also be adopted by North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore.
Each of the states above would have its own constitution to address the requirement with Yang DiPertuan Agong as the Head of Islam in those states. The respective State’s Assembly will enact laws to govern Islamic affairs and form a Board to advise the Yang DiPertuan Agong on matters pertaining to Islam.
On pages 120 and 121 of the memorandum mentioned it is stated so:
MSCC Memorandum dated 3 February 1962 PP 120-121MSCC Memorandum dated 3 February 1962 PP 120-121
In the Report of the Commission of Enquiry (Cobbold Commission), North Borneo and Sarawak, dated 21st June 1962 found that there was everywhere agreement that as the Muslims are minorities in North Borneo and Sarawak, there should be no restrictions on complete freedom of other religions in those states.
Cobbold Commission Report dated 21 June 1962 PP 39Cobbold Commission Report dated 21 June 1962 PP 39
In relation to that, the Inter-Governmental Committee, headed by Lord Landsdowne produced a report in 1962 and made the following recommendations on religion on Pages 5 and 6 which have been passed by the Sabah (and Sarawak) state assembly as follows:
IGC Report 1962 on Religion PP 5-6IGC Report 1962 on Religion PP 5-6
The IGC, which has representation from the Federation of Malaya representing the states in the Federation, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak, recommended that Article 3 needed no amendment. However, the provision of financial aid to Muslim establishments should only come with the concurrence of the states of North Borneo and Sarawak. This has since been provided for via Section 3 of the Sabah Islamic Laws Administration Enactment, 1992 where the Yang DiPertuan Agong is the Head of Islam in Sabah, and a Council (Majlis Agama Islam Sabah) was formed to manage and administer the Islamic affairs in Sabah. This has also been provided in the Sabah State Constitution (Articles 5B(1) and 5B(2)).
As mentioned at the beginning of this article, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan was angered by Tun Datu Mustapha’s action to chase out Christian missionaries from Sabah in 11972. Dr Jeffrey used this as the basis of raising the religion issue that was presented as part of the 20-point memorandum for the inclusion of Sabah into the Federation of Malaysia.
Having understood the reason for his raising the issue again, we must also understand the events that had taken place after Tun Datu Mustapha’s ousting of the Christian missionaries.
Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) won the state elections and formed the Sabah state government in 1985. From that point up until 1991, the Sabah state government built 825 churches compared to only 216 suraus and mosques.
The state government’s refusal to entertain a request by the Sabah Islamic Council made on the 2nd August 1986 and again on the 12th August 1986 to amend the state’s Shariah Law (Administration) Enactment No.15/77 to accord to the Yang DiPertuan Agong the power to administer Islam in the state of Sabah as required by Article 3(3) of the Federal Constitution (as amended on the 12th August 1976) and Article 5B of the Sabah State Constitution (as amended on the 28th December 1985) clearly denied the Yang DiPertuan Agong His Majesty’s prerogative that was agreed by the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Council, the findings of the Cobbold Commission as well as the Inter-Governmental Committee, and the wishes made by the Muslims of North Borneo in 1962.
The ousting of the Christian missionaries in 1972 was made because the nine missionaries who were foreigners abused the work permit given to them to work in Sabah, not to conduct evagelical missions. They were Roman Catholics, Anglicans, the Basil Mission and from the Borneo Evangelical Mission.
As Immigration affairs is a Sabah prerogative as accorded in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the first act by the Sabah state government under Tun Datu Mustapha was to deny them an extension of their work permit. They were then given a 14-day special pass to enable them to make arrangements to leave Sabah. However, the missionaries refused to obey the 13-day order.
Consequently, they were removed from Sabah through a Removal Order issued by the Sabah Immigration Department made under Section 32 of the Immigration Ordinance 12/59.
The Federal government had no role whatsoever in the removal of these missionaries. It was purely a state decision that was made based on a sound reason – the people of Sabah, regardless of race or religion had been living harmoniously. However, these missionaries have been sowing the seeds of hatred among the Christians of Sabah towards the Muslims by telling them to fear the “Islamisation” of Christians through forced conversions, a claim the missionaries themselves could not substatiate.
There was a plea made by the Christians in Sabah to the then-Prime Minister for the missionaries to be allowed to remain in Sabah. Tun Abdul Razak however recommended to the Christians of Sabah to instead allow priests from the Peninsular and Sarawak to replace the nine missionaries.
In his book, Jeffrey Kitingan had profusely spoken about alleged digressions from and breach of the Federation of Malaysia Agreement but avoided on the issue of the Sabah state government of 1985 breaching agreements made by the MSCC, findings of the Cobbold Commission, the IGC as well as the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
On the contrary, the Federal government has been fulfilling its end of the agreement by allowing the freedom for other religions to be practiced by its followers as per the agreement.
At no point was there any intrusion made by the Federal government in the affairs of Sabah, and that the removal of the missionaries from Sabah for violating the conditions of the work permit was totally a state issue, made using the powers accorded to the state of Sabah, as agreed by all parties that had agreed on the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.
In the next installement, we shall talk about the second point – LANGUAGE.
Apparently on the 10th December 2014, Tokong Lim suggested that if the Barisan Nasional wins the next general elections when it does not get the popular votes, the change must be done from the streets.
He was speaking at the Lecture Theatre, Student Wing, Block S3.1 Level B3, Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
If the following recording is authentic then the Tokong is not just a corrupted politician and ex-convict, but also an agent provocateur for inciting an undemocratic method to change His Majesty’s government.
LIM GUAN ENG’S SPEECH
“We know that Barisan Nasional are sore losers. They are really sore losers and they will not give up power that easily. Now, what will happen if they refuse to give up power? And I think this is one very important question in people’s minds, especially in the last election when we won the popular mandate but not the number of seats, we can see the huge mess if this issue comes out.
Now, if we win power, both in terms of popular votes, that means the popular votes, but (also) in terms of the number of seats, and then we are not allowed to take power, I think the matter has to be resolved on the streets and it will be resolved on the streets.” TERJEMAHAN UCAPAN LIM GUAN ENG
“Kita tahu bahawa Barisan Nasional adalah jenis yang tidak berpuas hati jika kalah. Mereka adalah jenis yang sangat tidak berpuas hati jika kalah dan mereka tidak akan menyerahkan kuasa dengan mudah.
Sekarang, apa akan berlaku jika mereka enggan menyerahkan kuasa? Dan saya fikir ini adalah satu soalan yang sangat penting dalam minda rakyat, terutamanya dalam pilihan raya lepas bila kita menang mandat popular tetapi bukan bilangan kerusi, kita boleh lihat kacau-bilau besar jika isu ini timbul.
Sekarang, jika kita mendapat kuasa, di dalam kedua-dua dari segi undi popular, maknanya tentunya undi popular, tetapi (juga) dari segi bilangan kerusi, dan kemudian kita tidak dibenarkan untuk mengambil-alih kuasa, saya fikir perkara ini mesti diselesaikan di jalan-jalan raya dan ia akan diselesaikan di jalan-jalan raya.”
This is what the law says:
PENAL CODE
130G. Whoever knowingly— (a) incites or promotes the commission of a terrorist act; shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to thirty years, and shall also be liable to fine.
153. Whoever malignantly or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting is committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting is not committed, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.
DEFINITION OF TERRORIST ACT
(3) An act or threat of action falls within this subsection if it— (a) involves serious bodily injury to a person; 90 Laws of Malaysia ACT 574 (b) endangers a person’s life; (c) causes a person’s death; (d) creates a serious risk to the health or the safety of the public or a section of the public; (e) involves serious damage to property; (f) involves the use of firearms, explosives or other lethal devices; (g) involves releasing into the environment or any part of the environment or distributing or exposing the public or a section of the public to— (i) any dangerous, hazardous, radioactive or harmful substance; (ii) any toxic chemical; or (iii) any microbial or other biological agent or toxin; (h) is designed or intended to disrupt or seriously interfere with, any computer systems or the provision of any services directly related to communications infrastructure, banking or financial services, utilities, transportation or other essential infrastructure; (i) is designed or intended to disrupt, or seriously interfere with, the provision of essential emergency services such as police, civil defence or medical services; (j) involves prejudice to national security or public safety; (k) involves any combination of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (a) to (j), and includes any act or omission constituting an offence under the Aviation Offences Act 1984 [Act 307].
Do you still remember Ting Tiong Choon, the Australian with the bak chang face who duped the idiots living in Pujut into voting for him into office last year?
He claims that his removal from the Sarawak State Assembly is a political conspiracy.
This conspiracy would have begun eight years before Ah Choon was born. Those who drafted the Federal Constitution knew that Ah Choon would be born in Malaysia on the 31st October 1965, and then apply for a PR status in Australia on 5 May 1994 after entering the country using a student visa on 7 May 1994.
However, he had his application rejected on 3 April 1995. In 2007 and 2008, Ah Choon bought substantial number of properties and set up many companies, and then applied for an Australian citizenship under the INVESTMENT category.
Tokong Lim asked what is PAS still doing being part of the Selangor state government when it (PAS) has severed political cooperation with PKR.
“Wouldn’t a couple be committing aduktery if they slept together after a divorce?” he asked, probably reminded by a habit frequently repeated his Chinese-disguised-as-a-Malay officer.
I often wonder why is DAP in bed with two people whom they severely criticised when they were of no political benefit to the DAP?
But the DAP is most forgiving because Mahathir is an old mule that could still serve DAP’s purpose.
Of course DAP maintains all digital records of their leadership lambasting Mahathir because when an old mule is no longer of any use, they can kill it.
The DAP would do anything including sleeping with criminals, go against the Federal Constitution and breach laws just so it can have power.
Then in an about turn, he said that there is no need for Tokong Lim to go on leave until he has been found guilty. Otherwise, he would have to go on leave just because of baseless accusations.
Five months earlier forked-tongue Tony said that Najib Razak should resign for being implicated in the 1MDB probe.
Najib Razak has been cleared by the tripartite investigation teams of any wrongdoing regarding 1MDB and unlike ex-convict Lim Guan Eng, was never charged in court.
It is unbelievably that the DAP leadership would not know the Elections Act as well as the Federal Constitution’s articles on taking up another country’s citizenship.
But of course the DAP is in the business of duping the rakyat into believing that it is fighting for the rakyat when all they want is the power and to be in positions where they can make money out of the rakyat.
Else why should there be fundraising dinners to fund Empurau dishes and also a RM305 million never-completed study for a tunnel?
DAP is just a bed of crooks, and those who voted for them a a bunch of stupid monkeys.
Recently I wrote how the DAP is filled with morons and gave two examples.
Today,I shall give you another.
WakeUp Malaya calls Yeo Bee Yin the East Coast economic saboteur
DAP’s Yeo Bee Yin said no to the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) back in March 2017. As a matter of fact, this one other dunce from the dungu party asked Selangor NOT to help out with the ECRL project when, as she said, it could be completed at almost half the price.
Those who voted her in are equal idiots or worse for letting themselves be duped by this slightly more intelligent moron. This is because she compared the cost of constructing the ECRL to the project in Tanzania where the new line will be built next to the existing line, no greenfields, and that there are no tunnels to be constructed. Being the typical drama queens, her Pakatan friends dubbed the ECRL the most expensive railway project in the world.
Brain Not Included
The first phase of the ECRL will run 600 kilometers of tracks, electrified, with 50 kilometers of tunneling. The second phase will link the ECRL from the Gombak Intergrated Transport Terminal to Port Klang, a further 88 kilometers. The cost is estimated to be at RM55 billion (USD12.6 billion). This translates into about RM80 million (USD18.4 million) per kilometer.
As a comparison, the Madrid-Volladoid line in Spain costs USD5.48 billion (RM24 billion) for a 177-kilometer distance which comes up to about USD30 million (RM130.4 million) per kilometre.
The Bremmer rail project in Switzerland cost USD6.56 billion (RM28.52 billion) for a 55 kilometer-line or RM518.55 million per km.
I don’t know how Yeo Bee Yin and friends could claim that the ECRL is the most expensive rail project. Then again, they also fielded a calon hantu (phantom candidate) who is an Australian citizen as a candidate in last year’s Sarawak state elections.
Suddenly, out of the blue, the ECRL is a meaningful project for the people of Selangor, said Yeo Bee Yin. She said this when questioning why, if the ECRL is to be the land bridge connecting Kuantan port and Port Klang, is the ECRL terminating at the Gombak Intergrated Transport Terminal?
Again, brain not included
She said that a crucial part of the argument behind the need for the ECRL seems to have been taken “off the map” and then insinuating that the Barisan Nasional-led government is punishing the people of Selangor by terminating the project at the GITT.
“It will give a lot of economical and social impact to the people of Selangor. Hence, the state government and Selangorians deserve to be better informed about the project,” she said. “According to SPAD personnel, the ‘missing link’ from Gombak to Port Klang, which is at least another 60km, will be in the second phase of the project.”
She made this conclusion after viewing the public display of the ECRL at the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) headquarters where, according to her, only 16.7km of the Selangor portion appeared showing the route from Gombak into Pahang, but not the important segment that connects it to Port Klang.
She also asked if there was an agenda by the Federal government in leaving the Pakatan Harapan-led Selangor government from the decision-making process.
Which begets the question: Did the DAP-led Pulau Pinang state government include the Federal government when it decided to have a tunnel to link the island with Butterworth? Isn’t that a state government project while the ECRL is a Federal government project?
Most of you would also by now ask why is the ECRL terminating at the GITT instead of at Port Klang?
Remember what I wrote above not too long ago, that the first phase terminates at the GITT while the second phase connects the GITT to Port Klang?
The answer appeared on the 13th May 2017:
The CCCC has signed an MoU with MRL for the construction of Phase 2 of the ECRL from the GITT to Port Klang
China Communications Construction Company Limited China (CCCC) has signed an MoU with Malaysia Railway Link Sdn Bhd (MRL) for a 88-kilometer rail link from the GITT to Port Klang. This is one of the reasons the Prime Minister is in China.
“Phase 2 will provide the vital connection to Port Klang. Ultimately, the ECRL underlines the importance of infrastructure to Malaysia and its people,” said Tan Sri Irwan Siregar, the Secretary-General of the Treasury who witnessed the signing ceremony. “Once completed, the people in the east coast of Peninsula Malaysia will be connected to the central region and west coast with important stops such as industrial hubs, airports and tourism zones located along the way.”
I would like to remind Yeo Bee Yin to leave the matter for the professionals to handle. Just look into simpler matters such as why are her voters double and triple parking their vehicles at Damansara Uptown. She has been the ADUN for that area for almost one term and yet she can’t teach her voters manners and solve the traffic woes there.
Or if she wants to look smart, she should ask Tokong about the RM305 million study that has yet to be submited to the Works Ministry.
And the DAP is filled to the brim with it. Let us start with evangelist Nga Kor Ming whose response to PAS severing ties with PKR is to say that the PAS Ulama use religion as a front.
Now wait a minute. Aren’t ulama supposed to use religion for their reasonings? What else are they supposed to use? Home science?
But this speaking before the brain neurons could connect is a character very peculiar to Nga Kor Ming.
However, the statement below is true.
And I say that the DAP is filled to the brim with morons such as Nga Kor Ming simply because they call themselves lawmakers and want to govern this country.
Yet they know nothing about the Federal Constitution or the laws of the land when they fight, as they claim, for their rights.
For example, they are willing to breach the Federal Constitution when they select their election candidates.
Enter someone from the DAP known in Australia as Dr Tiong Ting otherwise known as former Pujut state assemblyman Dr Ting Tiong Choon.
Ting found himself the target of attacks last year when someone claimed that he is in fact a naturalised Australian citizen.
Today, it has been proven that Ting had taken up an Australian citizenship which automatically annuls his citizenship of Malaysia as per Article 24(1) of the Federal Constitution.
He is an Australian citizen who had contested in one of OUR state elections!
Yet, in a press conference aired on the DAP’s Facebook Ting said that although he had taken up an Australian citizenship, he never lost his Malaysian citizenship.
Seriously?
And this is the person you voted into office and expect him to fight for your rights according to the Federal Constitution?
What is wrong with you people?
Now you can see that even the so-called learned leaders and LAWYERS in the DAP are ignorant of the Constitution!
Either that, or they would breach the Constitution and break laws as long as they come into power.
And that, my friends, is dangerous as you would be coting in people who advocate lawlessness. In simple language – gangsters.
As for Ting Tong, he can go sit in the corner until he grows a brain.
It makes me wonder now – what kind of monkeys is TalentCorp bringing back?
Mr Botox is not someone whom I take seriously but sometimes it’s nice to just whack him silly.
His latest tirade is against the MACC for the latter’s press release congratulating UMNO on its 71st anniversary.
MACC’s statement is as fair as you can get in its effort to make corruption the people’s enemy.
The MACC penned its hope that UMNO would support its Gerakan Anti Rasuah (GERAH) drive to rid the nation of corruption.
Khairuddin asked why has the MACC never congratulated whistleblowers such as Rafizi Ramli, Lim Kit Siang and Tony Pua?
Why should they?
Rafizi is a known felon. Last year alone he was convicted four times by a court of law, with one more expected; Lim Kit Siang is a known instigator who has made an about turn on U-Turn Mahathir; Tony Pua is just a loudmouth who fires away hoping something would hit.
Perhaps Mr Botox thinks that the MACC is pandering to UMNO and that UMNO controls the MACC.
Mr Botox being Mr Botox is not a bright person really.
At the launch of GERAH, the MACC had the media such as The Star and Malaysia Nanban as well as representatives from political parties like the DAP and the MIC.
Yes! The DAP was there in the form of the ADUN for Kota Shah Alam YB Ganapathy Rao a/l Veraman, while MIC was in the form of Vice President Datuk T Mohan.
So Mr Botox’s attempt to villify the MACC has come to a nought.
The MACC is trying to be fair to all and it does not help its effort by having people like Mr Botox running them down.
Perhaps he should congratulate Lim Guan Eng’s effort to clear his name by delaying the corruption trial he is being charged for, or ask MACC to investigate the weird theft of the New Gen Party that has had its name changed by Botox and Mr Box Ezam.
I am not sure if I am supposed to be surprised or if I should express shock at the latest statement issued by the President of the Bar Council of Malaysia, because no matter the President, they all speak like they have been doing nothing but drinking.
The courts should not refer to laws, says the Bar Council President
The currrent President, George Varughese explained that tort of misfeasance in public office is derived from British common law, which is unwritten but fully applicable in Malaysia.
“The action was therefore not brought under the Federal Constitution or any written legislation, and the High Court should therefore not have relied on either of these in determining whether the prime minister is a public officer. The nature of the powers of the office of the prime minister ought to have been examined to determine whether that office qualifies as a public office under common law,” said Varughese in a statement yesterday.
In striking out the suit, Justice Abu Bakar Jais had ruled that Najib, as the prime minister, is not a public officer and hence the suit has no cause of action. He based his decision on Article 132 of the Federal Constitution and the Interpretations Act 1948 and 1967, under which the prime minister, ministers, deputy ministers, and political secretaries are not considered public officials but as members of an administration.
This is the first time that I am hearing a call for judges not to refer to any written laws or the Constitution under which laws are made and enacted.
Firstly, Varughese himself explained that the tort of misfeasance in public office is derived from British common law, the ‘common law‘ being the operative phrase here. Malaysia’s legal system operates three kinds of laws: the common law, the Shariah law, and the customary law.
Under the common law, what Varughese is suggesting is for Justice Abu Bakar Jais to have tried the case under primae impressionis, a legal case where there is no binding authority and the findings adjudicatory in nature.
However, the learned judge (which is why he is a judge, and the present AG also is an ex-judge) knows he is bounded by laws and the Constitution, and therefore has to make interpretations based on the laws and the Constitution of which his ratio decidendi is derived.
I see lots of negative comments have been made because of the decision of the learned judge. Some cite American laws and interpretations of the Australian law on the definition of the”public officer” but forget that this is a Malaysian common law case applied in a Malaysian court of law. If one wants to cite Section 3 of the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 of Western Australia, we might as well refer to and use the Saudi Arabian Criminal Law here and let us see if more than 95 percent of the population would wish to migrate!
This is why Justice Abu Bakar Jais is a judge, and not some gobbledydook like the commentators are.
And another gobbledydook commented that if Najib Razak is not a public officer, then he is a coolie. He would know that word. That is the occupation of his ancestors when they were brought here from Kerala to toil the rubber estates.
I cannot imagine how many judges would have been fired from their job for deciding in favour of the opposition if he is being given powers again.
Fortunately, Najib Razak is not a dictator like this coolie-descendant is.
SeaDemon Says 
You must be logged in to post a comment.