SAKMONGKOL AK47

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.