Tales by an unknown Malaysian. No. 3

1. Before I go discussing about the house arrest , there are a few points left to raise in the SRC case.

2. Somebody from Najib's camp, a sycophant, a groveller, a lickspittle fellow started a story line that red lips Najib was framed.

3. Yet some fools and bloody fools believed in this big lie, this prevarication, this porky. It's meant to deceive and throw a monkey wrench in the works preventing everyone from reaching the inevitable conclusion.

4. Which is , that Najib did steal the money, using a legitimate corporate vehicle to siphon the money for his own purposes. To spend merrily, or buy expensive Birkin or Hermes handbags pay girls to blow him etc. while all these take place play the victim and feigned ignorance.

5. Have we ever thought that all the investigative authorities didn't find anybody who framed Roger rabbit? It is incumbent for the rumour mongerer to identify who the framer/s is,/are. And more important proved the bastard framed Najib. If he/they can't, shut the fuck up and shoved the story line to the place where the sun never shines.

6. If Najib had shown remorse and apologized for his crime, who he be let off?

7. We may not be conscious about it. But that's the entitled Malay thinking. The accused person before the apt sentence, because he is Malay, Muslim and horrors, from UMNO is devinely entitled to do what he did and be excused and forgiven for the crime.

8. We must banish that kind of reactionary thinking and accept this fact. If Najib had apologized and recompense the state, those acts DO NOT erase the fact of the crime. The act of the crime still remains.

9. If I murder someone, and I show remorse and apologized to the family, would those acts make the murdered come back? My virtuous acts do not erase the fact of the murder. So despite the recantations, the crime remains. It's the act that must be punished.

10. Yes , we must moved on. But not by trivialising what Najib did and forgiving him. We move on by having him punished and never to talk about it. What is done, is done. Capiche?

11. Because of these reasons and the earlier ones I gave, I think Najib does not deserve pardon. All the mitigating factors were already accounted for, that Najib is not entitled to another round of minimising the severity of his crime at the pardons board stage.

12. Now, the house arrest. It's an imbroglio, a pickle and mare's nest, isn't it?

13. It's unfortunate we are not able to compare the affidavit submitted by the the Javanese neanderthal with the affidavit submitted by the man who lost in the GE but made a minister by Nana Non

14. Having denied us the liberty to compare the affidavits, the judge has made an error. How can he or she assumed that we, the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus aren't capable of forming a rational opinion?

15. In the final analysis, it's a question of believability. The affidavit of a man who claimed to have met the invisible Arab donor to Ali babavum Najib and the affidavit of a bean counter who asserted that our economic fundamentals are good. Yet we have dropped from 27th to 34th placing in competitiveness ranking. Where got good econ fundamentals maaa?

16. What if the affidavits contradict each other? Now we won't have that opportunity because the judge rejected zafruls affidavit will we?

17. Isn't relying on a phone message and then recalling from memory constitute hearsay evidence? Knowing Zahid he may have an axe to grind.

18. An accessory to the hearsay evidence and it's subsequent embellishments and fairy tale stories probably concocted is the Pahang MB. Are they liable if the affidavit by Zahid is now found to be untrue?

19. So the existence of the addendum itself is not settled. Was there or wasn't there?

20. We shouldn't even amplify the house arrest issue. It's not provided for in the constitution. Is Najib now entitled to one as a result of some divine intervention?

21.we have been told ad nauseum that Malaysia is a constitutional and not an absolute monarchy. We have also been told that the constitution is above all.

22. Read together ,these principles to me mean that nothing is above the constitution and the king is bounded by the constitution.

23. The inclusion of the house arrest, not provided for in the constitution, constitute a change in the constitution. Any changes to it require 2/3 support in parliament.

24. Aren't we a constitutional monarchy? Not an absolute monarchy? In plain language it means whatever the king does is limited and constrained by the constitution. Right?

25. The king must not be allowed nor encouraged to go on a frolic of his own and does something that undermines and frustrate the constitution.

26. If the king had been given the liberty to frolic on his own, that means the pardons board has not properly advised him. That's a dereliction of its duty .

27. You have therefore a cibai pardons board. Or in the words of the Chinese man, whose elbow I knocked with the handles of my bicycle, puki Lu punya amak!

28. You will have a ridiculous outcome. Why should only Najib avail himself to house arrest? Can the king, as the fountain head of justice refused the application of other prisoners?

29. Let's say he is given the house arrest privilege by the government of Nana Non, then he is found guilty for 1MDB. Will he then be hauled up while enjoying his caramel macchiato courtesy of uncle Sam's Starbucks, to Kajang Hilton or bamboo River resort?

30. You see, Mon Ami, senors, compadre, amigo, paisan...only if you subscribe to the idea that the Putera in the term Bumiputera, the elite, the bourgeoisie and Mary Antoinette are entitled to special privileges, only then you will give effect to the house arrest. Which isn't provided for in the constitution and therefore unconstitutional.