Forum Report: Collapse of Law and Order

I was at the forum entitled Collapse of Law and Order on Saturday with a few fellow bloggers including James (Clare Street) and Howsy, who was sitting next to me.

The complete report of the posting can be seen at his blog posting.

You can see another one at Hafiz's.

The pictures that you would see were taken just next to me as well. He didn't move out of the row of seats!

Of course, the show got kicked off with the showing of the 8-minute footage of the Lingamtape. Some called V.K Lingam as Shockalingam - a nod to a guy killed in Anniyan which everyone was laughing. Sure, the real laughing point is indeed "correct...correct...correct!"

Of course the speakers are from PKR, BAR Council, Transparency International and an ex-UN Rapporteur. I find that the musing by Mr. Param a bit amusing especially when he recalled a remark of him being replied by the Chief Justice about accepting the appointment as Lord President after Salleh Abbas. Mr. Param also said that the lost of confidence in the judiciary can also result into vigilantism - taking the law into their own hands. He cited an example of a Guatemala magistrate stoned to death because of improper decisions. The important reminder in his speech is the fact that AAB is not fulfilling his manifesto.

I read the online edition of the MEA document that Anwar wrote before coming for the talk. I came to realize that because of the corruption and bureaucracy in the government, Malaysia stands to lose more than what they are able to gain. A notable fact that was said is that Singapore's standard of living is indeed five times better than Malaysia. Anwar speaks of various points in which no doubt I have to agree, despite my affirmation that I do not take interest in politics.

Former MP Wee Choo Keong is also among the audience, but seating at the back. His commentary is the one that stands out during the Q&A session. I remembered how he was a victim of law manipulation when the court decides to give the disputed parliamentary seat to the loser instead of conducting a re-count. I could hear what he said and his motive in giving justice to what was lost before.

I didn't know until today that my friend Martin was working as the driver for Transparency International founder Tunku Abdul Aziz. When I called him today to get some stuff from him, he told me of a problem. His October pay got stolen yesterday when thieves ransacked his car. There goes his pay. Of course it's negligence, but I thought of maybe meeting him over the problem. I don't know whether to help him or not. I told him that I don't have enough money to spare him because I figured that I would be paying a big portion of credit bills after next week.

But when I went through the whole thing, I came to realize that I can't seem to trust the judiciary anymore. If I am to challenge a big government over compensation of damages, I would immediately end up one the losing side because of the intimidation and the partisan decision of judges. Some are pressured by the mob to go with them or face punishment. Which reminds me of what Tony told me of a Shearn Delamore lawyer representing MAS did in the lawsuit against Audra.

You can say that high-profile cases involving the government are rigged from the beginning.

The Rich and Greedy

Image by Mob's Crib

This is a classic example of fat men. Not the physical fat men, but those who are rich, corrupt and worst of all, this man is a Member of Parliament. Member of Parliament of Klang.

You are an MP but you built your own house - a rich man's house in front of a garden estate populated by normal people. People will look kind of little jealous about you.

Last week, this man and a few company directors were cleared of 37 charges against them.

Show off. Isn't that a show of vanity? MP, make money through other businesses and build your own house like you don't even care of your duty?

As an MP, it is foremost a duty to help and serve the public who had entrusted you with the job to lead them, speak out for their troubles and always be ready in the time of their need.

But hey - he's shaking his legs. Building his big mansion, opening an illegitimate food shop without the council's permit and you still can get away with nothing?

Surely there must be someone above that is pulling the judiciary strings. In my opinion, maybe the judiciary was told not to do so against the VIP man like this man above for the risk of losing promotion. But who would be that mysterious party?

VIPs getting a preferential treatment or special treatment? They are spared from the blushes. But what about this scenario against an ordinary person like Wee Ming Chee? Wee was never given the chance. The idea of keeping him in leash despite apology shows how these big men practice double-standards. It's like clubbing a person to death, unconvinced of the sincerity.

I'm still scratching my head trying to understand that thing.

Aye To Our Local Bloggers!

Today, top local bloggers, Ahiruddin Atan of Rocky's Bru and Jeff Ooi of Screenshots filed an application to the High Court of Kuala Lumpur to join their cases under one case in a bid to strike out the defamation lawsuit filed by New Straits Times.

The main reason behind the merging of the cases into one were mainly due to the fact that the series of articles written by them in relating to the NST were indeed similar and in amount. In addition, Ahiruddin is planning to call current PM Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi and ex-PM Tun Dr. Mahatir to provide testimony for the case. Merging both cases will save the PM from testifying twice. Both of these men were accused by the NST for defaming them in a series of posts that might possibly cause damage in reputation and defamation of the NST. By joining their cases into one, they can halve the court costs and this indirectly shows the symbol of bloggers fighting obstruction by the media whom through their lawsuit stiffed the freedom of expression by other bloggers locally.

Ahiruddin Atan

Jeff Ooi (Screenshots)

Here's the extract of the post from Jeff in related to today's episode - with gratitude from the author (if it is read):

Today's hearing in chambers for my application to consolidate my defamation suit (The NSTP & 3 Others vs. this blogger) with that of Rocky's, and have them heard in KL High Court S3, could not take place as the plaintiffs' lawyers pleaded for more time to prepare their Affidavits-in-Reply.

My lawyers agreed, and presiding Judge, Justice Malik Ishak, allowed it. A new date has been scheduled for June 19, 2007.

Meanwhile, the mention of my earlier applications to strike out the plaintiffs' claims against me, and to set aside the ex-parte injunction ordered against me -- both based the plaintiffs' original Statements of Claims of January 11 -- still stays as per earlier scheduled for April 24, 2007.

March 20, 2007: Defence lawyers served on the plaintiffs a sealed copy of my application to consolidate both Rocky's case and mine under High Court S3. Basis: The consolidation will (i) lead to saving of time and costs; and (ii) ensure that decision of an inconsistent nature will not be handed down by the courts.

The application was made, and my lawyers agreed, as there are common points in both cases, and consolidating them would expedite the proceedings.

One of the members of plaintiff involved in the lawsuit was former editor Brenden John Perreira whom some claimed him to be a plagarist.

The news of the defamation suit saga, started since January has triggered the outcry from the the local blogger community and the opposition party including the leaders, Lim Kit Siang and former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The local blogger community feared that should NST win the lawsuit, it would stifle the bloggers right to express their opinions even issues that they might not agree upon.

Here's the post regarding these events from Jeff. Click here.
This is the post from Ahiruddin. Click here.


Melvin's Opinion:

I feel that through observations and readings of the articles relating to this saga, NST had the wrong kind of mentality - this goes as well as certain groups of citizens - by suing the bloggers on articles that might defame them. The first question that they should ask - in this mess, were they in the wrong at the first place but attempting to hide their guilt by the lawsuit? Second thing: Did the NST absolutely ensured that the coverage of the articles written by their reporters (commented by the bloggers) were rightfully reported? Third thing: If they are wrong or find that Jeff and Ahirudidin missed out something important, they should clear things up. Admit the mistake or they should have write a special editorial column clarifying the hype surrounding the issues reported and proof Jeff and Ahiruddin wrong!

IMO, not all bloggers are spreading the word that might cause dissention or ruckus among the Malaysian community - only chauvinists, racists and extremists would do that. Bloggers just do not cover political-based issues alone! However, when we write something that might be political or in response to a media-reported issue we should have the rough knowledge of the ISA - the Internal Security Act, as it do serves as a borderline for bloggers to control their statements. Actually, we won't mind posting as long as we know where our line would be. The main advantage of blogging is as a replacement to the past pen-and-paper version of your own personal diary or posting your opinions in regarding to an episode / event that is happening - depending on your tastes. Life is full of contrasting opinions, where each one of us has a different opinion over a subject matter.

Here's my experience from trying to write an opinion in a paper. In October 2006, the police has announced the measures for Ops Sikap XI. My concern was that the speed limit coverage might cover the Federal Highway. I have concerns over this issue as within the month before Hari Raya, people are still working. Imposing the speed limit means encouraging people to procrastinate, or creating more road hogs than ever. I wrote this to The Star. My opinion was published three days later, but I noticed that my post has been heavily sanitized compared to my original post.

After seeing my friend's blog, created at the end of January, I realized that having blog can serve many purposes including being your own boss over your opinions. I always believed in myself that as long you have self-discipline and sense of responsibility over what you write, writing posts in blogs will not be a problem.

I fully agree with the Star's GEIC, Wong Chun Wai's comment on the blogging saga. Chun Wai highlighted a point here:

Jeff Ooi and Rocky have made a name for themselves with their fearless comments and even breaking news. They have a huge following among Malaysians and, in the case of Screenshots, there are even advertisements, which is unprecedented in Malaysian blog journalism.

Their blogging has made Malaysian democracy more meaningful although not everyone agrees with their views. They should not be regarded as dissenters because democracy is about tolerance.

They have been bold enough to bring up issues that mainstream newspapers have not done.

It is unfortunate that many Malaysians only look at the political scene in black and white.

It would be meaningless if Malaysians were to agree to everything our political leaders say. We would be doing a great disservice to the country’s leadership if we do not speak up.

Unlike newspapers, where journalists can consult each other on the legal implications of stories, the one-man show depends entirely on the blogger.

From that above, the blogging can serve as 'filling in the blanks' that people do not know. If we are constantly told to shut up and listen, the government is actually promoting negative mentality and behavior among the people, which is totally wrong and against the proper quality of life. This concept has thus made students in schools everywhere in Malaysia unwilling to speak up or ask the teacher questions when in doubt. I would say that there's something gone wrong - and one of them is promoting the wrong mentality.

The post's point, "It would be meaningless.." has another strong point here. Each one of us have contrasting opinions to an issue. Making everyone to agree to a leader's comment means total suppression of freedom when it comes to the battle of freedom vs authority. The 9/11 saga and its aftermath now remains the number one battle between authority and freedom. With the 2002 Patriot Act still intact, even Americans and other people - foreign workers, immigrants and even students are under the strict scrutiny of the CIA, Robert Mueller's FBI and even Alberto Gonzales and his Justice Departments sub-ordinates. We talk on the phone and they are actually listening and trying to catch us saying something like 'bomb'. Isn't that over the line - the death of an American Dream?

I recalled watching Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth that former White House staff Phillip Cooney edited the researchers findings on the global warming effect, which eventually was leaked to the internet, edited without permission. This has triggered an outrage from environmentalists and even American citizens. According to Cooney's testimony, he was ordered to subvert / edit the findings in accordance to the environmental policies set by the White House /Bush Administration. To this day, Bush has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and was stil pushing for refineries of ethanol which caused rice prices to spike up and causing more damage to the environment. I find that it is a deliberate mess intended and it makes for the next administration to clean the mess up - a waste of resources and time.

I believe that the credibility and the bloggers rights are in stake in this lawsuit. No bloggers like those two are capable enough to stand against a big party that is out to stamp them off the blogging grid. Most of the Malaysian blogging community are behind them. This has evoke my admiration and respect of those two men whom help to shape and provide the support / foundation of the continuous blooming of the local blog scene.

Hit them hard, taffers!