Zaid's 'mediocre' too kind a word?

It's debatable whether Tunku or Abdul Razak was the best PM we had.

It's believed that Ku Li would be the best PM we never have.

And I believe Zaid Ibrahim will be the best PM we should have.

Recently, in the midst of increasing social unrest due to outrageous political, racial and religious brouhaha, some suspected to have been staged, Zaid made a number of high class statesman speeches, unlike some who should know better and act better and more responsibly but instead who thrive on being batu api and divisive agitators, of course for their own political interests.

Two days ago he stated in the Malay Mail Online that UMNO's Race policy has bred ‘mediocre’ Malays.

I wonder whether he remembers a certain 'someone' (wakakaka) said recently that meritocracy (besides the concept of Bangsa Malaysia) was not suitable for Malaysian society.

Thus this 'someone' was actually promoting Mediocrity over Meritocracy. In fact, that 'someone' said when Chinese talked about meritocracy, it's racist.

Anyway, let's examine whether Zaid has been correct in alluding to UMNO's race policy as breeding mediocre Malays, who I shall be fair, should only apply to UMNO apparatchiks and not Malays in general.

The incredible edible delible ink

The EC leadership couldn't even save their two miserable lives if that had depended on decent plausible reason for the so-called indelible ink becoming easily delible, preferably in the first instant the explanation was required.

The excuses provided were (in succeeding order as each preceding one was easily knocked off the perch of credibility for sheer moronic implausibility):

• EC staff didn't shake the ink bottle well enough
• silver nitrate in ink reduced on advice of Health Ministry as it might cause kidney damage and cancer - New Health Minister S Subramaniam retorted PORDAH to EC
• ink deliberately made more delible to allow Muslims to perform ablution prior to prayers (the apparatchiks' standard resort to 'agama' to save their skins (why then bother to claim ink was indelible or event to use it?)
• ink had edible oil (why was it there then?)
• some bastards deliberately rubbing off the ink, wakakaka - surely this one is the best or perhaps worst, BS that was.

Weren't those two EC clowns mediocre? That would have been too kind to them.

The 'Siapa Raja' RoS

Examine the 'siapa raja' mentality of RoS Director-General, a mere public servant.

The Malay Mail Online reported on 26 July 2013:

The DAP could face a permanent ban as the Registrar of Societies (RoS) has said it will reject the opposition party’s application to form a new party if it is deregistered.

RoS director-general Datuk Abdul Rahman Othman was quoted by The Star as saying that the party should not “harbour false hopes” of forming a new party since the body had shun applications to register new parties for the past five years.

“They can apply. But the right to approve it is with the RoS. We did not even entertain 29 applications to set up new parties submitted over the last five years,” he said.

Hello, I didn't realize that the RoS DG is a Law unto himself, where he can approve or disapprove registration of societies without any accountability?

As a mere public servant, he should explain to the public why he "did not even entertain 29 applications to set up new parties submitted over the last five years"? Apa ni, makan buta gaji, syiok sendiri kah?

And he should explain why and on what grounds he has pre-empted any possible re-registration by DAP? Siapa raja kah?

takut kan?

And since then, everyone knew he would continue to harass the DAP (unlike the ready registration of his precious UMNO Baru in 1988), and even then, on nebulous grounds brought up by unknown complainants and one so-called Father Augustus Chen, a phantom who the RoS DG has the brazenness to rely on in his illegal directive to DAP.

This man is truly an arrogant unaccountable public servant who believes he can do what he wishes or what his UMNO bosses wish.

Incidentally, Khairy Jamaluddin for all his Oxon airs should be fair and brave in admitting the DAP, for all its party procedural correctness, faces a losing case with a local shameless unconscionable Attila the Hun, thus the party's best and pain-saving bet in the long run would be to just re-hold the CEC elections to close a pure case of political harassments.

Mediocre would be too high a praise for this sickening UMNO apparatchik.

The Adorna case

After 10 years of legalised fraudulent pilfering, on 10 January 2010, the Adorna judgement by Justice Eusoff Chin was finally overturned.

The website of the Malaysian Bar's reported:

A five-member bench of the Federal Court today unanimously ruled that the previous Federal Court had misconstrued the provisions of section 340(3) of the National Land Code, 1965 ("NLC") in its decision of Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit 2000 ("Adorna Properties") because the principle of deferred and not immediate indefeasibility applies to the NLC. [...]

Delivering the main judgment of the apex court, Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria said the Court has to depart from Tun Eusoff Chin's four-page judgement in Adorna Properties as it is erroneous.

It's not just f* erroneous; it has been f* shameless and immoral.

In delivering his supporting judgment, Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi described the error committed in Adorna Properties as "obvious and blatant". He added that it is a well known fact that some unscrupulous people have taken advantage of this error by falsely transferring titles to themselves.

Indeed the "error was obvious and blatant".

It led to a decade of fraudulent cheating that subsequent courts had to abide by Eusoff Chin's judgement in the original ruling on the infamous Adorna case.

The judicial ruling deserves a place in the Hall of Shame for endorsing duplicitous scams for almost ten infamous years. Legitimate owners of properties in Malaysia were rendered unprotected and helpless by the unjust nonsense.

I bet Madame Boonsom Boonyanit who unjustly lost her Adorna property because of Eusoff Chin’a ruling must have cursed him and the Malaysian courts before she passed away, and I hope her curses work. Alas, the poor lady passed away and never ever was to know that it took almost 10 long years before a modicum of justice would reassert itself in BolehLand.

And those who had legally endorsed her loss of property through an obvious case of fraud deserved/deserve every curse in her damnation. It just beggars belief that a Malaysian court ruling had not only caused such blatant injustice but perpetuated and abetted the same shameful fraudulent practice.

The injustice of the Adorna case ruling was so flagrant that (now-retired) Justice Gopal Sri Ram, once sitting in the Court of Appeals, did what the catchphrase in Star Trek claims (paraphrased): Go where no judge has gone before by boldly ignoring legal precedence.

Though criticised by many, Justice Gopal's amazing defiance of stare decisis (legal precedence) to rule in favour of the Au brothers in 2007 was eventually vindicated when the Federal Court sat early this year to overturn Eusoff Chin’s ruling of infamy.

The Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Arifin bin Zakaria, acknowledged in his 2010 judgment that, "It is therefore highly regrettable that it has taken some time, before this contentious issue is put to rest". 

Believe it or not, Eusoff Chin was once the Chief Justice of Malaysia. Was he just mediocre? Bloody f* no, he was worse.

This was what a lawyer said of him, as published on the website of the Malaysian Bar:

At the forefront of the attack was retired senior lawyer Lim Kean Chye, 88, who described the Federal Court's 2000 decision on the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit as "stupid".

"To put it in a nutshell, the case made a laughing stock of our judiciary," the octogenarian ex-lawyer told a forum - entitled 'Property Rights Under the Malaysian Constitution' - at the three-day 14th Malaysian Law Conference, which kicked off today at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre.

The case had destroyed much of the credibility that the judiciary had enjoyed among foreign investors in the protection of the rights of property owners, said the feisty Lim, who had founded the defunct Malayan Democratic Union and had once been detained in British Singapore.

The name of Eusoff Chin has in recent weeks been resurrected following the emergence of the infamous Lingam tape.

we Malaysians are by nature very friendly & sociable  lah

In the eight-minute video clip released by opposition party PKR, senior lawyer VK Lingam was seen talking, purportedly to a senior judge, of securing the appointment of ‘friendly’ judges from Chin's camp.

In 2000, then-CJ Chin had controversially overruled the Court of Appeal and awarded a piece of land to Adorna Properties despite it being fraudulently gotten from Boonsom - the registered landowner - through forgery.

At the heart of the trial was whether Adorna case was to be categorised under clauses (2) or (3) of Section 340 of the National Land Code.

Lim said that “plain English” dictates that neither clause can be mistaken for the other.

"Section 340 (2) says you have no title if you bought from a forger. That's the end of it.

“But if A buys from a forger, and sells to B - an innocent man - sub-section (3) protects you. The second buyer (B) is protected," said Lim.

He argued that the Adorna decision - which involved a buyer getting the property directly from a forger - should be come under sub-section 2 of the land code instead of sub-section 3.

In his hard-hitting speech, Lim alluded to Lewis Carroll's book ‘Through the Looking Glass’ to press home his point. He quoted Carroll from the book:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, "it means just what I choose it to mean."

"The question is," said Alice," whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," Humpty Dumpty said, "which is to be the master - that's all."

Lim continued: "The former judge (NS) Chan has said it ... he said of another court ... they're stupid, they don't understand the English language.”

The ex-lawyer also took the opportunity to lambast the judges, many of whom have ruled according to Chin's judgment in the Boonsom case.

Legal expert Teo Keang Sood later pointed out in the forum how several court decisions had followed the precedent set by Chin in 2000, including in Ismail Mohmad & Anor v Ismail Husin, in Liew Yok Yin v AGS Harta Sdn Bhd and Mok Yong Chuan v Mok Yong Kong & Anor.

Judges ‘obey the boss’

According to Lim, the judges had failed to realise the true spirit and intentions behind the principlestare decisis and instead followed blindly the precedent dictated by peer or higher courts.

"To them, stare decisis means 'obey the boss' even though you are of the same rank but you're slightly older and appointed earlier than you.

"Stare decisis doesn't mean that. Stare decisis came about out of respect - you like the judgment written by a judge or by three or four judges, (which are) full of learning and of wisdom, and full of justice.

"But if that court doesn't deserve your respect, how does the principle of stare decisis apply? To me, it's very clear. If there is an injustice, you don't follow it," said Lim.

Do you have a "bright future"?

On the matter of stare decisis, remember the bowler who when hauled before the court on a confessed charge of statutory rape, was discharged by the judge because "His Amazing Worship" believed the bowler had a "bright future"?

Statutory rape versus "bright future" of rapist, and in BolehLand, of course statutory rape lost.

So Noor Afizal Azizan was allowed scot-free after bonking a 13-year old girl, thanks to the Malaysian Court of Appeal who (amazingly again) considered many factors such as, believe it or not, consensual sex.

Hellooooooooo, yang 'Amazing' arif, the victim was sub-16, in fact only 13. What kind of judgement had it been, when judges didn't understand what was 'statutory rape'.

The law states clearly that a person below the age of 16 is deemed unable to make an informed decision and/or appreciate the possible consequences of the decision.

Thus, consensual sex is totally irrelevant in statutory rape!

Thus, non-coercion is totally irrelevant in statutory rape!

Thus, any adult who had sex with a girl below the age of 16 has committed statutory rape, regardless of consent by the victim or that there was no force or coercion!

The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported in its news article Rapists freed by courts match medical definition of paedophiles that the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) categorizes paedophilia as ‘a sexual preference for children boys or girls or both usually of pre-pubertal or early pubertal age’, ...

... while the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) used by mental health professionals globally states 'paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pubescent or pre-pubescents aged 13 or younger and the subject must be 16 or older with the child at least five years younger'.

TMI states the slimy maggot fitted the medical profiles of paedophiles and that international research of paedophilia as a sexual disorder suggests that paedophiles start offending at a young age.

I was totally gob-smacked by the judge's explanation where he had dared, in a case of statutory rape, to use the excuse that Noor Afizal did not use force and that it was consensual sex.

Were these new laws no one other than the judge was aware of?

Apparently not, as his colleague in Penang has done the same thing to another maggot Chuah Guan Jiu who too bonked a sub-16 year old girl but was released on good behaviour bond, probably in classic stare decisis or worse, in not wanting to offend the more senior judge by making him look bad?

maggots

In my post Malaysian Laws like Spider Webs? I pointed out that an unemployed Malay man in Johor was jailed for FIVE YEARS for stealing less than a dozen cans of beer. He was charged under Section 380 of the Penal Code for theft, which carries a maximum 10 years’ jail or fine upon conviction.

For stealing 11 cans of beer, he was sentenced to 50% of the max jail term.

Those two arseholes, Noor Afizal and Chuah Guan Jiu were charged under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code where they could face up to 20 years' jail and whipping.

For raping little girls, did they get any fraction of the max sentence or whipping?

The moral of the story we obtain must be that under Malaysian law, it's (criminally) safer to rape little girls than steal a few cans of beer.

Mediocre would hardly be the word for those judges - it would have been too kind. Mafulat would have been more appropriate.

However, I am please to say one of the two maggots, Chuah Guan Jiu, was subsequently jailed for 5.5 years after public outcry over the stupid court ruling and an appeal by the prosecutor. He deserved it.

But what about the bloke with the "bright future"? Surely what's good for the goose (Chuah Guan Jiu) should be good for the gander (Noor Afizal).