Judicial discretions and the rule of law

You can't shut off your mind from these things.

A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was Necessary on the ground of national security without adequate supporting evidence is not sufficient in law....

Two mosques in Muar were torched. A number of churches were already burned down. Public anger is building up. The silent majority speaks in a language outside the comprehension of Mr Lim Kit Siang. The silent majority doesn't want to speak in M r. Lim's language.

Unfortunately for Mr Lim the silent majority of Muslims are not confident as imagined or as desired by the former daughter number one. We don't have to qualify our confidence level or our self assuredness in terms defined by daughter number one. We defined our confidence by not compromising on the fundamental elements of our faith.

So what about those burnings and torching here and there?

This is not possible. They can't be happening. The violence is simply indefinable in law. All the burning of churches, torching of suraus and mosques cannot be happening. How can these be happening when they are not within the contemplation of the laws by which the learned judge guided herself? Mere statements are not sufficient in law. The defendants' lawyers have failed to prove that the usage can lead to security problems.

The facts have since overtaken the neat premises of what is or what is not in law.

You must have evidence. Bad things, mayhem must take place first to support statements to qualify as sufficient law to exact the relevant remedy. Otherwise it's all worthless. It's the same as a murder must first take place, before a murder charge can be made.

Two mistakes took place here.

• 
  
  First the defendants stated their case in a very simplified manner- merely alluding to the possibility that public security can be breached. Malaysians you see, are not clever enough to stage an avatar requiring firmer legal redress.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Second, the court underestimated foundations of faith. It's not founded on logic or artful manipulation of arguments and so forth.
  
  
  

Now we heard pig heads were hurled into mosque compounds. To Muslims, this is sacrilege and is abound to stir up unbridled passions. The opposition parties are quick to point out that these are scare tactics used by unscrupulous politicians (read UMNO politicians of course). That's the same logic used in Anwar did a self injury.

That's utter nonsense! Just as the torching of the churches, using the perverted logic and reasoning accustomed by the opposition, the pig heads throwing must have been planned by Pakatan people.

It must be them. They need this issue to stay alive. Anwar needs this issue to divert attention.

How does it feel now, if these kind of perverted accusations are levied against you?

Just as the torching of the churches, the pig head throwing incidents were caused by common thugs.

But then, these things cannot be happening within the scheme of things that formed the basis of Justice Lau's judgment, can they? They can and already did.

Nik (and Pakatan) would replace NEP with a race-blind, need-based policy. I appreciate this sense of social justice but we must remind ourselves that good intentions alone do not make for effective policies. There are realities to consider.

IF IT WERE A CHOICE BETWEEN ELIMINATING NEP AND RIOTING ON THE STREETS, MOST WOULD MAKE A RATIONAL CHOICE: KEEP THE DAMN THING!

Question: if this commonsensical advice can be urged upon such a mundane thing as doing away with the NEP, why couldn't the same reasoning be applied to a more explosive issue? Funny how that kind of thinking is treated as amendable to an economic and purely rational issue, but disingenuously abandoned when needed on a rather irrational issue as religion.

But you CAN make a rational choice. Keep the damn thing!