Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

Friday, 5 June 2020

Historical Amnesia

Some people dispute the SD of Azilah.  They say its impossible to recall and remember things that happened  a long time ago.  Even  things that happened  a week ago we can't remember.  They say we are engaging  in selective  recall.

That's verbal gymnastics.  Certain  things we just remember.  There are no mental exertions. I can also say some people have historical  amnesia.  They  deliberately  deny certain things took place.

Can we then deny Altantuya was murdered? She bombed herself.  What Azilah said cannot be  true. Not possible  for Azilah to remember.

Certain things we just can remember.  I can remember things 50 years ago. I stayed at 600, Jalan Lipis transit quarters Kuantan. That was over 50 years ago.

I can remember my late father stepping on a nail 50 years ago.  Behind our house there was a turi tree. I used to pluck turi leaves to be cooked.  Our neighbour was a Singh family Gurbachan Singh.

The point is we can remember things especially  those that are important  to us and about important  people.  So if Azilah can remember  some details about  the killing of Altantuya, that's not strange.

Things about the brain ability may not be amenable  to legal machinations  all the time.

Historical  amnesia allows us to forgive  Riza Aziz and allows us to deny that 1mdb took place. Bosku is an angel and that DOJ return of monies to Malaysia  is a dream.


Tuesday, 2 June 2020

The law is an Hydra - its a many headed monster.

I listened to the commentaries of Apek Cina and believed they must not go unchallenged.  I too leave it to the public to judge.

Let me give you a real story, not a fiction.  One day in Negri Sembilan, before an assembly of UMNO division heads- Zahid Hamidi tells them if your father gives you  money you don't question  where  the money comes from. Later the  government  says the money is stolen.

Are you a thief? No!. You can always say you believed the money is legitimate and you  return a portion, not all of the money.

You are  not  a thief but you are guilty of receiving stolen money.  And returning a portion of the money absolves you.  The sin is erased! Hooray!

Using the same fallacious argument you declare  that Riza Aziz is not a thief.

1) He believes the money came from  legitimate resources  and 2) he returns a portion, not all of the money.  In any case who the fuck is the government?

Isn't that what Apek Cina is saying?

If he can dispute anything what's stopping  him from  questioning  the  legitimacy of government ?

First, the  one giving the money is not  our father and does not enjoy filial  relationship. Second, returning  a portion, not all the  money does not erase  the original  wrong. Savvy?

That being the case, the thief of the powdered  milk can plead he honestly believed what he did was correct, and  he volunteers to return a portion of the money equivalent  of the powdered milk. He has  no  criminal  record  of stealing.

Charge  him  for using excessive force.

The law permits you  to  use force but feather-light force. That so?

The law charges Riza for  money  laundering.  The money  came from  1mdb through  Aabar investment limited. That's too difficult  to understand?

So Tun Mahathir does not need lawyers to clarify things to  him. I from sekolah atap can. A lawyer is like a painter. He can turn black into white.

Of course that is just a fiction.  But if I were to see a snake and a lawyer it's prudent to kill the lawyer first.

The  tape released by sprm has Najib saying so that it would appear-it implies  that Najib  actually  knows the truth.  Would appear and appears  are two  different  things you know.

When Najib  says 'would appear' it means Aaba PJS investment Ltd is farcical.  It launders some hot  money.

The head of Aabar maybe a crown prince, but he's not our crown prince. Unless we are to believe  he doesn't go to the toilet to shit.

Tommy Thomas  says he agrees in principle. To me this means he can agree if there are more evidence,  qualifications and conduct from the plaintiff. He may also not agree.  To read acquiescence  into 'agree in principle  is presumptive.

There  is an assumption  that Riza believes that by returning  a portion of the money he can avoid going in and out of court.

That's Balderdash. Riza agrees because that's an admission  of guilt.


Monday, 1 June 2020

There's a thousand ways to skin a cat.

Let me ask a question.

A man steals a few cans of milk powder using excessive force he knows how. On the facts he gets convicted and is jailed  for 2 years. The law ignores his level of intelligence.

In another case a person steals over 1 billion says  he doesn't  know where  the  money comes from took the money  from x company  not from y.  He cannot be charged because  he says so returns some of the money he gets away scott-free.

In case 1 the law ignores the level of intelligence while in the second, to cut it short, celebrates  the level of intelligence  and rewards the more sophisticated  person by dropping all charges.

The law says it bases its decision on the facts and that's  why the  sentence  is different.  The degree of mischief  is lost in legal sophistry. The judge does  nothing but interprets the letter of the law.

The law can always be differentiated on the  facts-so that an apek cina can always dispute everything  under the sky while contrarian views to his, because  they don't resort  to social  media, makes us unaware of them. It makes his views seemed persuasive.

Let's  not rush to judgement just because we have not heard contrarian views and therefore  accepts glib arguments from apek cina.

Is the mischief  of stealing $50 more severe than stealing $1 billion? Is hiding behind  technicalities more commendable?
The powdered milk thief behaves in the only way he knows how while the  1 billion felon has many things going  for him including unsolicited defence from an attention  grabbing lawyer.

But who wants to defend the powder milk thief?  Making excuses for the 1 billion felon is more news-worthy.

So lets not be taken in by robust but glib rationalisation.


Sunday, 31 May 2020

Golden Memories


Saturday, 30 May 2020

Melodic songs


Friday, 29 May 2020

In memory of my parents


Some modern classics


  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by 2008

Back to TOP