Monday, December 27, 2010

Nazri, do you believe Bala's affidavit too?

'If an affidavit is proof, then Najib must be guilty because Bala also made a sworn statement against him.'

Nazri believes Apco more credible than Anwar

Md Imraz Muhammed Ikhbal: An affidavit from the accused merely refuting his guilt is proof and evidence to our law minister? Gosh! Which law school did he go to?

Can we now presume that an affidavit from Anwar Ibrahim refuting his guilt on the sodomy charge against him can likewise exonerate him once and for all of the alleged crime? Or does Nazri's logic applies only to wherever and whenever it serves BN's political agenda, and after which different standards apply?

Gerard Samuel Vijayan: If Karpal Singh is accused of being a 'third-rate lawyer' by Nazri then he has just confirmed the kind of lawyer he himself is.

Is the self-serving letter and affidavit from Apco credible evidence that is incontrovertible? Have the rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence not applicable when it comes to Anwar? Was Anwar given a fair chance to defend himself before the parliamentary rights and privileges committee? Why bother now, when the deed has been done using the brute majority of the BN based on the report of a 'kangaroo' committee?

The fact remains - why are we using the services of a Jewish company with close links to the Israeli establishment to advise us on anything, and pay them RM77 million a year?

Bluemountains: What kind of law minister is Nazri? He must realise that the more he spins, the more he gets caught in his own web. The rakyat know that he is taking them for fools.

PM: Apco more credible? What kind of a government have we that we have to use some Americans to do public relations for the glorification of Umno and its leader. You could have used our own local PR consultants for far less than the amount paid.

Broken Foot: Nazri has got the whole issue upside down. If you accuse Anwar of lying, should the burden of proof be yours? Anwar does not have to proof his innocence. He only need to defend himself, which you did not allow.

Since the rights and privileges committee has already pronounced Anwar guilty, isn't it a little late in the day to ask for proof?

Rakyat Malaysia: It would be better to spend RM77 million for the benefit of the people than giving the money to Apco. BN wasted money to doing a useless image marketing but has never done anything real for the people other than shouting '1Malaysia' brainlessly.

Fly Emirates: Israeli-linked companies have been known to disguise their business and country of origin so often, so I for one do not buy what they say. In case Nazri is not aware, due to pressure from the Muslim world, Israeli companies have moved their corporate head offices from Tel Aviv to Geneva, New York, London, etc, to give an appearance that they are not from Israel.

Even a certain persimmon sold in Malaysia claiming to be the sweetest persimmon in the world originates from a certain valley in Israel.

Wira: Nazri, Your thinking is flawed.

1. If an affidavit is proof, then Najib Razak must be guilty because private investigator P Balasubramaniam also made a sworn statement against him. Remember Najib's response? He swore to God he never met Altantuya Shaariibuu. Is this the standard of proof required in Malaysia to nail or to get someone out of trouble?

2. Nazri, you are entitled to what you believe. Just be aware that you are an interested party. However, don't be a hypocrite.

3. Anwar was not given the chance to defend himself at the rights and privileges committee even though the opposition parliamentarians had demanded that prior to a decision by the committee. Why ask for his defence now after you have sentenced him?

Pants on Fire: No one is stupid to have accepted RM77million and then say they are linked to Israel.

seals: There is always duality.....even in Malaysian Law

No comments: