The Dandelions

.. the mutual admiration and bashing society.

All We Need Are Scissors And Glue !!!!!!!!!???????????

Posted by ErnieJean on October 10, 2008

The Sessions Court here today postponed the sedition trial of blogger Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin to Monday after the prosecution applied to review the charge against him following the foundation of the charge being disputed by the defence.

Judge Rozina Ayob made the deferment after defence counsel Gobind Singh Deo found the alleged seditious article attached to the charge sheet was not the same as the one posted on the bloggers website on April 25.

Gobind also made a comparison of the two articles and pointed out that the one attached to the charge sheet did not have a title whereas the actual one carried the title “Let’s Send the Altantuya Murderers to Hell.”

“There are also several contradictions, in that the contents of the attached article were re-typed and Raja Petra’s picture was copied and pasted,” he said.

– Bernama

CUT AND PASTE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????

Is this all our prosecution team and police are capable of !!!!???? And they are supposed to be representing Malaysia !!!!????

(No wonder lah, this case sure lose wan, so have to ISA lock-up)

Remember this?

Singapore’s rebuttal, its final arguments in the Pedra Branca case, was published in today’s edition of the Straits Times, titled: Now you see it, now you don’t. Quote:

Malaysia’s photo on left and Singapore’s photo on the right.
SOURCE: Singapore Straits Times
Nov 20, 2007

Therein lies the photographic illusion that Malaysia had created to exaggerate the closeness of Pedra Branca to Johor,” Singapore said yesterday at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague

Someone please start passing around paper bags for all Malaysians to hide their faces in shame!!!



31 Responses to “All We Need Are Scissors And Glue !!!!!!!!!???????????”

  1. S.K. Tan said

    With all these faked evidence, i hope RPK defence team’s should ask the judge to throw out the case based on this evidence without going thru the rest of the process and wasting all the taxpayers time and monies.

  2. hafiz J said

    was this really true? aiseymen… now no one trust malaysia/n..

  3. Tony Wong said

    who wants to do biz with a coner????

  4. Chris said

    There’s no Photoshop involved here – both photos are real but taken at different distances to give different perspective.

    The Malaysian photo was shot at a greater distance from the subject with a more powerful telephoto lens, which then equalises the sizes of the foreground and background.

    The Singaporean photo was shot at a much closer distance with a wider-angled lens, hence producing more depth in the shot.

    You can tell by the perspective of the island itself on the Singaporean shot, where you can clearly see that the building is in front of the red/white tower, which is in turn in front of the black and white one.

    The Malaysian photo, on the other hand, shows all the structures on the island on a single flat plane – because a longer focal length diminishes a sense of depth.

    It’s a basic principle of photography.

    If you don’t believe me, you can try this at home with a digital camera with a zoom lens.

  5. Shit said

    This is fabrication of evidence….what other evils that these people can do??

  6. torres said

    both sides, malaysian and singaporean are playing with perspective view. Comparing both pictures, seems that the malaysian took the shot from high platform, with high zoom focus so that the island looks near, while singaporean snap it from sea level, with wide lense, to make the island looks afar. So sapa yg cuba nak menipu sebenarnya?? So singaporean pun got to cover their face in shame with their paper bag

  7. myke said

    Chris Says:

    Your theory is out, you forgot that if both photos were taken from the same distance away from the island, (which in this case shows more or less the same because the island itself is of same size in both pics) no matter how you zoom-in you will not see the same island remaining the same size and zooming will not expose what ever hidden behind the island, in this case what was hidden behind is exposed. Can you do that.??

    Chris, show me that when you hide an apple behind an orange then zoom in see whether you’ll be able to see that apple behind, and eventually even bigger than the orange in front.???

    Ponder Chris, ponder.

  8. I have no idea whether it’s true or not but lets just say I can actually do that with photoshop myself 😀

  9. Cheah SK said

    I think Chris is correct. It depends on the focal length of the Lens the picture was taken.
    No way I can test it out .

  10. klfs said

    Chris’s theory seems correct.
    But the photo is “fabricated”.
    No matter what, ICJ is not an idiot to make final decision based on the “photo evidence” only !

  11. Cherubim said

    Prosecutor does sloppy work… are they deliberately doing really sloppy work to aid RPK?

  12. erniejean said

    Well, whatever the actual story was behind the two photos, the fact was that the Singaporean team got our Boleh-team all tongue tied and red-faced…….and the fact that they won says it all, doesn’t it?

    Yea Cherubin, it just doesn’t make sense that such sloppy prosecution work actually exists, huh?

  13. barbie said

    Cherubim, believe them to make such blunders because they are really that dumb, not to aid RPK 🙂

  14. Gopal Raj Kumar said

    Independent Committee into Dismissal of Judges in 1988.
    The Malaysian Bar, a Fraudulent Unreliable Sea of Incompetence. If in trouble Fight your own battles without them.


    “The myth about existence of only things scientists can find and only things theories predict, is just that a myth. Out of an infinite number, diversity and variety of myths made possible by the mystery of existence, atheists arbitrarily choose to believe in one pessimistic myth about existence of only things scientists can find; and only things theories predict” (Kevin M. McDaniel).

    Lawyers likewise have settled upon us this pessimistic myth as a rational default position. And there are those who insist, a belief in such a pessimistic myth is necessary in order to be rational, law abiding, fair, just or simply sane.

    However because the truth is that, a myth is a myth, it is also perfectly reasonable therefore to choose the most optimistic myth about their ( a lawyer’s) version of the law as a rational default position.

    Such a rational default position when pushed hard enough with other well worn urban myths, anecdotal evidence of corruption (and perceived dominance by one person, in this instance their bette noir Dr. Mahathir Mohammed former prime minister of Malaysia) it leads inevitably to belief in the myth about the law and the Malaysian Bar’s interpretation of it; that lawyers can find things that legal conventions and theories predict; and everything else that enables us to have the highest esteem in their beliefs and their purposes.

    I will refrain from quoting or adapting any further from the writer. Although the impact and the dimensions of his thoughts as expressed are critical to understanding at the introductory level, an analysis of the Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons to Examine the 1988 Judicial Crisis in Malaysia (“the Report” and the “Panel”) a proper analysis can be undertaken without embellishment or adornment of the facts.

    The Myth of “Terms of Reference”

    The Panel of its own material is a self serving forum. The composition and the authority by which it came into existence is equally a manifestation of the same self serving interests of the sentient mind behind it at all times, the Malaysian Bar.

    In an effort to lend legitimacy, a cosmetic semblance of dimension and depth to the Panel and its purpose, the Malaysian Bar had pulled together a raft of loosely knit interest groups referring to these as ‘various other groups’ in support of its star chamber.

    However on closer examination it could hardly be said that these various other groups were in any way representative of the broader community in Malaysia or independent or impartial to legitimise such an exercise. And finally for good measure in its list of cohorts the Malaysian Bar adds the media, but is careful to be non specific of this fourth estate.

    By the Malaysian Bar’s involvement in this inquiry, the Panel and its findings are deprived the character of independence it craves. Not that the removal of the Malaysian Bar’s involvement would in any way have necessarily cured that defect when one considers the political complexion and the position the Malaysian Bar and the other named groups involved had already taken against the subject of the Panel’s real objectives, Dr. Mahathir Mohammed .

    More important, one wonders what the real purpose of the exercise was, considering the Panel lacked any judicial or quasi judicial authority, legal or moral coercive force or any force at all for that matter that could in its wake prescribe or enforce the desired remedies the Malaysian Bar claimed to be pursuing by the Panel.

    The Panel is and was incapable of recommending prosecution or referring its findings to a higher tribunal capable of reviewing the events of 1988. It had no capacity or coercive force or influence to effect its desired outcomes, whatever these may have been, obscured by the heat of revenge, though not quite stated in those terms in its objectives. In short the Report is of little legal, jurisprudential, legal or moral significance.

    More damaging to the credibility of those behind the idea to set up this Panel are the statements of the Malaysian Bar through its president. Her statements ridicule the Malaysian Bar’s claims to uphold the virtuous principles of fairness, equity, justice and transparency in its endevour to bring closure to a matter otherwise long dead and buried.

    The Panel it seems turned out to be nothing more than a tool designed to exact vengeance from an individual not of their ranks, who it appears made mockery of their professional incompetence and the arrogance of their ignorance.


    This challenge for the Malaysian Bar should have been found in the dichotomy of the perceptions of law and justice held by them as legal practitioners and officers of the courts on the one hand and those same concepts as understood by consumers of legal services including the executive on the other.

    The problem though for the Malaysian Bar appears to have arisen from their inability to draw the distinction between justice as a process and justice as an outcome.

    The absence of a consultative process to include opposing points of view may forever remain a blemish on the credibility of the Malaysian Bar unless of course its members who understand the flaws in the proceedings speak up about it sooner rather than later.

    The Panel’s outcome appear to have been pre determined judging from the selective nature of evidence put before and accepted by it from one party alone. And in the absence of any countervailing evidence or dissenting views by any other party to or the subject of the Panels Inquiry either in terms of submissions or other contribution to the Panel, the terms of reference or the process of selection of the Panel the whole process was conceptually flawed from a legal, constitutional and moral standpoint.

    A fatal flaw in the integrity of the Panel and its findings lay in its composition. It was an appointment by one side. A kangaroo court or star chamber if you will.


    It is yet to be determined (20 years on form date of the event of 1988 and from publication of the Panel’s Report in 2008) what grevious offence so vital to the integrity of Malaysia’s judiciary or its constitution occurred, so radically different to similar events in other commonwealth jurisdictions, for that event to be so doggedly pursued by the Malaysian Bar and its allies.

    There are three branches of government recognized in the traditions of the Westminster system of constitutional government. The executive, judiciary and the legislature, like the father the sun and the holyspirit are not three gods but three persons in the one godhead. And as it occurs in that other holy trinity, the trinity in government vests much power in one of the three.

    Standing between these like a geographic border, an imaginary line between two states is the equally imaginary doctrine of the separation of powers. As fictional as any other doctrine (or law) is, the fact remains that these doctrines and laws are fundamentally recognized more in the breach than for their observance at anytime anywhere.

    So in 1988 a powerful and impatient executive, sick of the ‘cap in hand’ sub culture so inimical to a rapidly developing Malaysia burdened by the sycophancy and obstructive nature of a bunch of interlopers in the civil service and judiciary, took on the perceived omnipotence of the judiciary.

    Not laid before the Panel however, was the missing and critical evidence that certain elements of the judiciary then, attempting encroachment into the role of the executive and legislature through other forums, were discovered and challenged.

    The legislature by its chief chose to rise up to the challenge, call the bluff of the seemingly irrelevant doctrine and crossed the line. Interestingly no one died as a result. Malaysia went on to attract record foreign investment and rid itself of much of its third world status (except in the minds of those who blindly worship the west and all of its institutions even though they understand little of it or its application and consequences to them).

    In examining the relevance, the importance and the impact of this incident which has farcically grown into a modern day Spanish inquisition, one has to take a closer look of the conventions, doctrines and laws that government the conduct of the three branches of government.

    It would then be useful to compare these in the context of the doctrine of the separation of powers, and the individual powers of each of the other branches of government, the legislature and the executive to assess its impact arising from any breach of convention of the nature complained of, then examine the Report and reasons for the Report to make better sense of it all.


    In this whole saga there are two protagonists. One being a former Prime Minister of Malaysia, unrepresented at the inquiry and without any input to controvert or to contribute to the terms of reference The terms of reference broadly speaking in this instance is a roadmap created by the other protagonist, prominent members of the Malaysian Bar.

    To add to the farce, neither the Panel nor its Report were either independent or impartial evidenced by a statement attributed to the president of the Malaysian Bar following release of the Report.

    The president of the Malaysian Bar Datuk Ambiga Srinivasan unfortunately and perhaps recklessly appears to confirm what has long been suspected as bias in the minds of elements of the Malaysian Bar as protagonist either on its own or acting as a conduit for the frustrations of the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas and other disgruntled elements in government to exact a form of revenge against Dr. Mahathir Mohammed.

    That part of Ambiga’s speech that seeks to convey the Malaysian Bar’s settled position prior to the appointment of the Panel and its Report appears to be contained in the following quote from her speech;

    ” the bar has been steadfast in supporting the judges whom we knew had suffered a gross injustice in 1988”.

    The operative word in that statement above being “we knew”. By what means and how Dato Ambiga knew she clearly fails to establish. Any evidence to support such a bold prescient statement and the claim behind it should have been placed not before the Panel but a properly constituted tribunal or court within Malaysia for it to have been examined in light of all other “evidence” later presented to the Panel.

    It is easy to draw the inference by reference to that particular element of Datuk Ambiga’s speech, that an element of perceived bias can be said to have been present within the minds of the Malaysian Bar (and by implication their stalking horse the Panel) prior to empanelling the so called assembly of Eminent Persons. And by virtue of that element of perceived bias, now confirmed in her speech which turns out to be actual bias, participation by the Malaysian Bar into the whole process at any level has clearly tainted the integrity and independence of the Panel. It appears conclusively that the Panel was clearly stacked.

    Which therefore now begs the question; “should the Panel have continued with the process, in the absence of any input from any other party to its proceedings? perhaps a party that could have validly represented the interests of Dr. Mahathir or the government or a party that could have validly challenged the inquiry or provided evidence to controvert the assumptions laid before the Panel?

    And finally was this a witch hunt by an interested party such as the Malaysian Bar and for what reasons was the Malaysian Bar seeking to proceed with the Panel 20 years after the event, considering the distinct possibility that with the death and ageing of many of the witnesses, the quality of the evidence available could have well been eroded if not rendered unreliable and compromised for those very same reasons?


    There is ample evidence and a plethora of material from all over the commonwealth including nations from wherein members of the Panel were selected to show clearly that removal of judicial officers is not as sacrosanct or rare as is made out to be by the Panel and the Malaysian Bar in their findings.

    In fact a lack of understanding of the conventional doctrine of the separation of powers appears to be perhaps where the problem actually lies.

    Examples of Breaches of Doctrines and Conventions

    In 1975 the popularly elected government of Edward Gough Whitlam in Australia was sacked by the then governor general of Australia the late Sir John Kerr on the advice of members of parliament with the concurrence and written opinion of a judge of the High Court Sir Harry Gibbs.

    There was much debate that followed at every level of Australian society. Recriminations followed. But the debate remained at a mature and although emotional level relevant where valid arguments given the opportunity to be ventilated, controverted and argued fairly won the day. The winner was in the end a more politically mature Australia.

    The incident it was later discovered with the benefit of some research by scholars not to be unprecedented. A previous government in the 1930’s in the state of New South Wales had also been sacked in similar circumstances by the governor in breach of a convention.


    Interference in any of the three arms of government by the other is generally perceived as being detrimental to the independent and efficient functioning of government as it has the potential to erode not just the independence of each of the three arms of government producing potentially undesirable outcomes that in theory could lead to a dictatorship.

    There is an attempt and a convenient one at that to re cast the events of 1988 into an act that was illegal or unlawful perpetrated by one individual, that being the Prime Minister of Malaysia during that period, an event for which its is implied there were disastrous consequences for the integrity of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers.

    What’s not understood or clearly explained is the fact that even if Dr. Mahahtir did sack the judge, his actions in doing so was neither unlawful, unprecedented nor one which the Prime Minister (assuming he did it alone) did not have the legal power at his disposal to carry out.

    Even if he did sack the judge and failed to follow procedure as laid out in the constitution there is nothing to suggest that he may not have cured the procedural defect subsequently of retrospectively.

    The fact remains that the power did lie with his government to remove members of the judiciary even if that meant doing it without an address to both houses of parliament.


    There are instances where judges have been removed by the executive simply making their tribunals or positions redundant. In a particular case which High Court judge Michael Kirby in his contribution to Tun Salleh Abbas’ book May Day makes reference, a judicial officer of the Industrial court was practically removed from office in this way. There was no reference to both houses of parliament no tribunal to inquiry into his conduct, simply a redundancy of his position.

    In doing so the executive and the legislature had simply overcome the burden of having to carry out the task through the conventional means of having to proceed through the cumbersome exercise only after an address to both houses of parliament.


    More recently of course there was the case of the sacking of the chief justice in Pakistan which resulted in rioting and mass hysteria by the bar in that country and by supporters of opposing political parties.

    One notes that Pakistan has had limited experience as a democracy and the events referred to occurred under a military dictatorship in a fractured lawless society which Malaysia is not.

    The Panel member from Pakistan therefore may not have been a good choice considering her limited exposure to the conventions, the rules and the workings of a bench and a government in a democratic environment.

    The notorious case of the sacking and jailing of former Queensland Chief Magistrate Di Fingleton is another case in point. Australia has had a number of high profile cases involving judicial misconduct wherein those (apart from Fingleton and Vasta) resigned rather than face the prospect of an ignominious trial by media and government.

    The Di Fingleton matter is so radically different from any other and can draw no comparison or analogy to the Salleh Abbas matter. It is perhaps an example of where the judiciary in their arrogance were so fundamentally wrong and ignorant of the basic law and the doctrine of the separation of powers that they ended up shooting themselves in the foot at the expense of a fine chief magistrate.

    And from the ranks of Australia’s hallowed legal profession is selected a representative to the Panel to judge not the merits of the events of 1988 but to hang Dr. Mahahtir instead.


    It is said that the Berthelsen affair was a catalyst in the whole affair of the sacking of the judges in 1988. Berthelsen a foreigner on a visa to remain and work in Malaysia had his visa revoked and was asked to leave the country.

    It is further alleged (a matter unfortunately up held by the appeal courts then) that Berthelsen was denied natural justice in that he was not afforded the opportunity to be heard in appealing the decision of the Director General of Immigration.

    It is well established in law that the physical presence of a defendant before a court in any jurisdiction including Malaysia is not a necessary pre requisite in order for that party to be heard. This is particularly so in matters involving immigration law where the appellant is abroad.

    Of paramount importance when weighing up the right to be physically present for a hearing and the danger of the presence of the ‘offender’ in the circumstances for whatever reason, is the opinion of the Director General of Immigration as was in Berthelsen. There is no reference to this point and whether the appeal courts dealt with such a point in considering the matter.

    There was no right to Berthlesen to remain in Malaysia. The grant of a visa to a foreigner (a non citizen) is a privilege granted at the discretion of the host nation not an absolute right of the non citizen as Berthelsen is and was at the time.

    The denial or revocation of his visa was a discretion at the hands of the Director General of Immigration who exercised that discretion. And contrary to what the court of appeal by implication decided in that matter it was not the right of Berthelsen a non citizen in the circumstances to be present in Malaysia (onshore) to be heard in his appeal against the decision of the Director General of Immigration.

    It appears the court of appeal not just erred but may have been negligent in arriving at its decision, perhaps fuelling the fire of a conspiracy theory which Dr. Mahathir then may have acted on.

    As an example, Australia has excised many of its territorial outlying islands in an effort to deny refugees landing on these islands the right to appeal ‘onshore’ in order to establish their rights to remain in Australian as political refugees.

    Regardless of the hue and cry raised by every human rights groups and the legal fraternity worldwide at the time, the High Court of Australia in its wisdom upheld the right of the Minister for Immigration to exercise the powers he possessed to do what he did in this regard.

    The matter was decided in the ministers favour inspite of Australia being a signatory to the Human Rights Convention and the Refugee Convention. The fact remains that unpopular decisions can be and often are not illegal or unlawful.


    Having considered the Berthlesen matter and the decision of the appeals court, one wonders whether or not it is necessary to labour the point that the other case of United Engineers could well have suffered the same fate of judicial incompetence in the hands of an anti Mahathir coalition of judges. And if that were the case, would it have constituted judicial misconduct or judicial misbehavior?

    Sallman in his paper on this subject refers to a number of cases of judicial misconduct, judicial misbehavior on and off the bench which would be worth a read by the Malaysian Bar. The fact of removal of judicial officers and the legality or morality of the issue depends much on a number of factors including the legal and social environment in which they operate. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

    Salleh Abbas chose to make an issue out of the events of 1988 and to demonstrate his abject lack of understanding of the process by not resisting the Malaysian Bar’s conduct in empanelling the so called Eminent Persons Panel. It was a self serving Panel appointed to prepare a report he Salleh Abbas so desperately saw necessary to vilify the former prime minster which act has served to reinforce the former chief justices apparent ignorance of how the system operates.

    This is just an abridged version of what I chose to communicate on this matter which is a sorry saga in the legal profession, an indictment of the profession on its ignorance of the law and its unrelenting efforts to embed itself in the politics of destabilization of a country whose rank and file workers have achieved so much in such a short time under the leadership of Dr. Mahathir and his government.

    Gopal Raj Kumar

  15. mesoso said

    mesoso also cut barbie’s picture and pasted next to mesoso…looks quite real wor..hehe


  16. Loh Eddie said

    Ask the Malaysian immigration to start providing paper bag to all Malaysian entering Singapore effective from today. Really malu lah!!

  17. mut said

    That is ridiculous !

    Chris’ theory doesn’t stand up to scrutiny…. The lighthouse and concrete structures in the middle appears to be of the same size and angle to the respective photographers. You telling us that different lens used from roughly the same angle and distance would preserve the size of the image of structure in the FOREGROUND but produce a BACKGROUND image which is 7 times BIGGER???

    Only in Bolehland !

  18. futurist said

    It’s all play and less work by the prosecution. Just finding the easy way out always.

  19. Madame said

    Yes, Ernie….I read abt the cops presenting a ‘cut n paste’ version as evidence to the court. Shocking but yet entirely plausible given the integrity of the police and judicial system in Malaysia.

    Beyond disgusted….

  20. Bolehland Resident said

    Sadly, Chris is right. As much as I hate our politicians and their dirty tricks, both pictures are “correct” representations.

    The Malaysian shot is taken with a telephoto and the Singapore one, with a wider angle lens. The telephoto lens compresses perspective thus making things in the background look nearer, hence the greatly magnified hill. The converse is true with a wide angle lens, hence the apparent distance from Malaysia.

    For non-photographers, you can look this up in ANY photography book explaining the different perspectives offered by different lenses.

    Do not act like fools spewing judgments as this would make you no different from the “elite ruling party” in Malaysia as it would show your own ignorance to the world.

    Cut and paste evidence is on the other hand, a totally different story. As one cannot verify the “accuracy” of the evidence, then there will be no Prima Facie case. I really do hope that RPK’s case will be thrown out due to this. He is indeed a hero for doing what he has done. We must continue to support this great man.

  21. InSingapore said

    Actually, I think Singapore explained that they took the photo with a lens that was far closer to what the human eye is (I suppose that should be about 50-100mm in 35mm film-speak). In contrast, the photo relied on by M’sia was a longer telephoto lens which is not “accurate” when “accuracy” is measured as what the human eye sees at that spot.

  22. Abracadabra said

    Chris, InSingapore and Bolehland Resident,

    I don’t know who has the right version. But since you guys know photography better than I do, could you explain to me one perculiarity? There is a barge behind the tower on the left in Singapore’s pic while the one taken by Malaysia is without a barge. Surely whatever lenses you use, the barge wouldn’t have miraculously disappear? Which question should I ask? Why is the barge there or where is the barge?

  23. ezra said

    There is no photoshop involved I believe.

    The photo on the right was very obviously taken with an extreme wideangle lens, probably wider than most consumer point and shoot cameras. Note the very obvious darkening of the corners – typical in wide lenses.

    Also note that the picture on the left is very ‘flattened’. This indicates the use of a telephoto lens.

  24. ezra said

    Chris is right.

    Myke, look at the waves. It is just so dang obvious one was taken with a telephoto (right) and one with a wide angle lens. The pic on the right was taken from a much closer distance (few waves in pic). The pic on the left was taken from much further away.

    Btw abracadabra, here’s a fact to ponder:


    burned 😉

  25. Bolehland Resident said

    Thanx Ezra…

    Barges do move, and pretty fast too I might say, sadly, we can’t say the same about some of our leaders, who have remained immobile with respects to the abuse of the ISA.

    Besides, there is nothing to indicate that the pictures were taken simultaneously from the same spot (eg GPS location and time which newer cameras support), hence another misconception about the pictures. For all we know, the pictures could have been taken days, weeks, even years apart. So a mobile object cannot be used as a “landmark”

    Just sharing what I know as a photographer.

  26. linajoy1986 said

    Chris Says:
    October 10, 2008 at 12:16 pm
    There’s no Photoshop involved here – both photos are real but taken at different distances to give different perspective.

    hey Chris…if you a beginner photography don’t bullshit with your photographic make our photoghrapers community a fool.

    go get the picture as you claim and email to me, if you manage to prove your claim i’ll let you lick my asshole.

  27. Angry Taxpayer said

    Dear Bolehland Resident, guess you do know a lot about photography, huh? But no need to go around calling folks here “fools”, ya? ;D

    However, I think the main point here is about our Malaysian legal team’s acute INABILITY to argue their case convincingly, esp when they present evidences such as their version of the rock island’s photo.

    I mean, hey, if one were to present something as evidence in the court of law, shouldn’t one be ARMED with enough firepower and “facts” to back their arguments and convince with the aim to win?

    Just like RPK’s case, our national legal team just submitted evidences regardless of whether it’s full proof or not. (Of course, in this case, it’s actually a good thing, cos it’ll help RPK come out victorious)

    A case of “TIDAK APA”, don’t you think? Taxpayers have been paying them “gaji buta” for far too long!

    I say, “SACK THEM ALL!!”

  28. The Essence of the Charge against RPK , that the Article {as a whole – in toto} was/is Seditious.
    Sedition is defined as causing ill feelings to the Nation.
    The Nation of Malaysia was set up by agreement between the Queen of England & Our Rulers{Sultans}.
    Thus only our Rulers can be the complainant/s.
    NO HALFASSED JACKASS{HAJA}who calls himself Director of Interpol has the right,the capacity or the wherewithal to lodge a report.
    Besides, this HAJA stated that some portions of the Article were inaccurate!
    Lord Almighty! From a HAJA who does not know the difference between plasticine & plastic explosives & C4!
    Being inaccurate/not true is a quantum leap to being Seditious!
    The Judge was stunned simply becoz the implications would be that the HAJA can be hauled up for Contempt,Lying Under Oath,Tampering with Evidence{Penal Code},Breach of Trust{as a Public Officer},Criminal Defamation & Libel.
    After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander!

  29. Bolehland Resident said

    Dear Angry Taxpayer,

    Did not call anybody fools 🙂 Unless of course those of you who felt like one after an initial outburst without prior thought and being shown the “facts”. Makan cili rasa pedas, I guess. Besides, I wrote “Do not act like fools”, did not actually call anyone a fool except for the “ruling elite”.

    Hope I do not rub anybody in the wrong way anymore. My apologies if any offence was taken.

    Anyway, am in full agreement with you with regards to the sad state of our legal system. The problem is these weaknesses have been propagated by the “VIP criminals” to ensure they can get off scot-free based on technicalities. (I think many can come up with many good examples eg missing evidence, tampered evidence etc.) Even the judiciary cannot be trusted as they are equally corrupt. How many trials-in-a-trial are needed in the C-4 case just to delay judgment?

    As long as the powers-that-be allow “wrong-doing” to continue in their own interests, then nothing can be done to improve the state of our legal system. As an example, what has happened with the initial hoo-ha about the V.K Lingam case after the Royal Commission. It does not appear that any concrete steps have been taken to “punish” the relevant parties. Just lots of empty promises.

    Anyway, let us continue to pray fervently for justice and fairness in our beloved homeland and take the necessary baby-steps towards “Makkal Sakthi”. This clarion call goes out to all, even to those of us who are called “pendatang” as we need to remain united as Bangsa Malaysia if we wish to see any change in our government.

  30. mauryaII said

    What can be expected of a prosecution team that has a head who is accused of tampering with evidence in Anwar’s 1st sodomy case? The prosecution’s idea of justice and fair-play is what it is told by the UMNO elite aka UMNOputras.

    The present prosecution team would be elevated to higher positions in a matter of years if the BN goons are still in power. After all the present AG was the key person who led the prosecution against Anwar about 10 years ago.

    So, cut and paste, photoshop, etc is child’s play for the prosecution. To them, the End justifies the Means.

  31. have it ever occurred to you guys that singapore lowered the hill using photoshop?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: