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.

To ban Netflix's man on the run or not to ban. That is the question for BossNon.

1. Businessmen who have monopolies, licences, concessions are in the main enemies of the free market. Yes, they are all for the free market, except they don't want the ethos of the free market applied to them
2. They rush to Putrajaya to get special tax rebated, they want cheaper loans and government assistance, they want to preserve their monopolies.
3. When sapura is in trouble, it wants the government to help them. Nobody touches the monopoly on rice while saying publicly, we want to sort out the rice problem.
4. Bossnon doesn't really want to dismantle the monopolies, even when saying loudly he wants to break up the monopolies.
5. Bossku is all for freedom to compete for all party positions, except don't challenge the ketua bahagian2 post. If possible he wants the position till eternity.
6. Bossku, his lawyers, his psycophants and his major domos are all for freedom of information, freedom of the press etc. Except when they affect his interests.
7. So they pester and petition BossNon and the authorities to have Netflix's 'man on the run' be taken off from being communicated in any form.
8. The lawyers say pompously, the documentary is prejudicial to the interests of bossKu Ali babavum Najib. If the documentary were complimentary of Najib, his psycophants and majordomos, would embellish it with unbridled gusto and lustful appetite.
9. In fact, the nextflix rendition is boring and make it out that UMNO is composed of heroic and righteous people.
10. So, BossNon and the bungling and inept communications minister should not pay heed to the pleadings of bossKu's lawyers and other psycophants to unfree the nextflix documentary. Nahi, Machas.
11. Indeed, if the communications minister were politically savvy, he would air the stories about SRC international and 1MDB so as to inform the people.
12. Instead, he is more interested to ensure his hair is combed properly and his hair is in place, tries to look more handsome and perhaps make sure his 'dick' is ever ready.
13. In the meantime, he announces his big data project to hide the fact that he is doing a lousy job as Malaysia's Joseph Goebbels.
14. So, BossNon, see the quality of your people. I must admit that he is my friend, but won't treat him with kids gloves.
15. Sorry for the digression, back to the nextflix issue. There is absolutely no justification to ban the documentary, unless it harms 3rd party .
16. In this case, only the interests of Ali babavum Najib are affected. No harm is cause to the public at large. And some UMNO apparatchiks may be offended but they are few in number. Ignore them .
17. This follow the principle laid down by J.S. Mill( the economist), not a lawyer I am afraid lawyers may not know who Mill is .
18. The principle is this. There is no justification to use power against a person's own will, unless the use of that power is to prevent harm the issue causes to 3rd parties. The negative externalities argument.
19. Najib's private interests, moral or emotional are none of our concern. But the interests of the public at large, save for a few UMNO psycophants, are. The public wants to know what is going on . That need shall not be denied by an intolerable executive ban on the nextflix documentary.
20. That freedom of information must include access to any media publications, however obnoxious they may be regarded.
21. Lawyers for Najib say the publication of the Netflix documentary is prejudicial to Najib's defence. Let's take them on this issue.
22. Isn't that kind of argument an insult to the intelligence of the judges? It means, they are not capable of forming objective decisions. That they are easily swayed and easily influenced by some bitchy stories.
23. This issue really is a litmus test to show whether the people articulating the issue believe in freedom or not . Clearly the lawyers for Najib and UMNO psycophants, like the monopolist businessmen, want freedom for every one. But when their interests are not favourably accounted, they want special treatment.
24. The government must show whether they are on the side of private bourgeois interests OR on the side of the interests of the mustadafin/lumpenproletariat.
25. In a sense, how the Netflix issue is being played out, it is the manifestation of where the entitlement mentality is being challenged.
26. The Malay elite and bourgeoisie believe they are entitled naturally for special treatment and privileges, entitled to their demands etc. These are being challenged by the unhindered airing of Netflix's man on the run.
27. If the government accedds to the requests of these reactionary buggers, it's affirming the self entitlement mentality.
28. As to the documentary itself, it's a very boring film, yawn-worthy and only makes the ang-mohs heroes .