Speeches from the legal mandarins.

1. Her lordship, the CJ said the judiciary was unjustifiably maligned by the inefficiency of others in the legal system.
2. This was presumably in response to the stringent criticisms against the judiciary given the DNAA given to jahid .
3. Zahid was proffered with 47 corruption charges but was given a DNAA upon the request of the AGC.
4. That was a mathematical miracle which can only happen in Malaysia. The outcome of the math varies  with the mood of BossNon. This was a black eye in our judicial history.
5. 
    
   
6. Like it or not, the dropping of the 47 charges will forever be our DNAAgate.
7. We must allow the monologue statement from the CJ to go unchallenged. That statement, from the view of the public seems unduly over sensitive.
8. From the viewpoint of the public, the statement is self serving. It's designed and meant to protect and to preserve the perceived infallibility of the judiciary.
9. Because it's perceived infallibility, any criticisms towards it, are by definition, considered as unjustified. What more if the perceived infallibility is supported by legal acts that preclude any criticisms.
10. You know immediately, that those who like to justify something by acts, are actually intolerant of disagreements and difference in opinions. So, the shut out any dissent, by referring to this or that out. Really their purpose is to keep their turf protected. They are territorial after all.acts, are the refuge of intolerant people.
11. I am inclined to say refuge for scoundrels, as dr. Samuel Johnson did
12. In this 21st century, we should be more tolerant and accomodate dissent not stifle them by some acts or some judicial views.
13. The views attributed to mdm CJ assume the force of law and effectively serve as fetters to difference of views.
14. In America, the 1st amendment provided for criticisms and disagreements through protest. Therefore if some judicial decisions are met with strident criticisms even from noisy and boisterous MPs or from busybodies like I, the dissent comes with the territory .
15. Instead of having recourse to some archaic acts, we should have provisions like the 1st amendment.
16. The speech by madam CJ, surrounded by her regally robed judges is objectionable on the following grounds.
17. First, it confers upon itself the quality of infallibility, it is intolerant of criticisms, it hides behind acts drafted by mortals and probably inherited from the fish and chips imperialist.
18. As long as the people in the judicial fraternity fart, fornicate and menstruate, the judiciary can never be infallible. So, chill, mdm CJ.
19. Nevertheless, the succinct speech by mdm CJ, is like the Chinese cheongsam worn by seductive waitresses in Chinese restaurants. Of course the mp from Kuantan cannot go there as he would be extra gatal.
20. Before we discuss the revealing aspect of the speech, we want to tell the CJ, that the public is keen to know the rationale behind the dropping of the 47 hot potatoes.
21. The dropping of the 47 charges seemed arbitrary, indicating lapses in due diligence,lack of thoroughness and lack of transparency in dealing with high profile cases.
22. May we remind the public that leaders are expected to hold higher ethical standards. The charges initially proffered against wak jahid simply means he has no standards. Yet these are the qualities preferred by UMNO supporters. It must mean that leaders like these and UMNO must be rejected in the next elections. As I have said, let us perform the last rites on the political dinosaur.
23. May we remind the CJ, the public looks at the DNAA issue differently. Not only they are keen to know the rationale behind the dropping of the charges, the issue can undermine public trust in the impartiality of the judicial process and it's transparency.
24. So, despite her consternation about public disquiet, the public has the residual and inalienable right to know the rationale behind the DNAA.
25. So that she gets down from her moral high horse, know that public distrust in the impartiality of the judicial process is increasing.
26. Wasn't it Lord Denning who said that the law is not a technical game to be played only by technical experts, but is a living force to be treated with compassion and wisdom.
27. Dismissing public disquiet and criticisms and doing so by some judicial practice acts, the public is not aware of is neither compassionate nor wise. Indeed, it is disingenuous and hitting below the belt .
28. From the CJ's speech, who the f is the institution which caused the stiff necked judiciary to be maligned and vilified? Confound it!
29. It cannot be the disdainful, contemptuous and held in low esteem SPRM. Somehow they managed to put up investigation material which the judge and the AGC then agreed that there was a prosecutable case.
30. Suddenly and inexplicably, the AGC did a volte face. They went back on their words and applied for a DNAA. An abortion done at a late stage is very perilous to the health of the judiciary. The DNAA for Zahid, is the height of absurdity.
31. The one to blame is the AGC. Going back on its own words, is a sign of a sign of absence of amour propre, a sign of capricious and whimsical conduct. It certainly indicates a lack of due diligence on the part of the AGC.
32. At this juncture, I must share with you what my friend, Zaid Ibrahim once told me. 'Judges and lawyer are like eggs. We have grade A, B and C'. With the DNAA against Zahid, I see many egg heads in the AGC.
33. They are good- in the standards of grade C eggs
34. As if in defiance or feeling guilty, the AG said the AGC is under no obligation to explain to anyone, it's decision to withdraw its case. He cited some acts to that effect. 
35. Perhaps that is your prerogative. But Mr smart Alec AG and Mr little Napoleon, that is a wrong message to the public.
36. The message to the public is, you are not accountable for your actions. That cannot be. We are not hooligans, knaves or irresponsible fellows  . The law,bit seems assists in a fundamental mischief. There must be something wrong with the law .
37. The usage of law acts to justify, preserve your status quo or to benefit you , is generally unconscionable.  To me, you just cannot argue your case. Often acts are the refuge of scoundrels. It really reveals you are a closet freedom hater .
38. The point is, ' let a thousand flowers bloom'. 

How the public sees the process of justice is depicted as follows:-

Under these circumstances, they won't be silenced.