I was rudely woken up from the extended O.B.E. slumber by this stern request at the last posting which read “I put it on you to write a posting about your activity yesterday, Sir!” – Elviza.
How can I refuse a lady, right? Besides, she wrote it in such a lawyerly manner because she is, and if I don’t do a posting, I’ll probably never hear the end of it. I don’t want to hear her rantings at the next MRT session.
Pix by Rocky but he didn’t use it. Zorro did. (Click on pix for handsomer version, puhleeez). And if you wish to see another version of me, all pooped out and wheezing away, gasping for air, go here.
The ‘Walk for Justice’ event was significant for a number of reasons, ostensibly, ranging from the noble to the rather mundane. We can talk about esoteric idealism like upholding justice (judiciary), democracy or even re-instating our rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. Or it can viewed as an outpouring of pent-up frustrations by a bunch of lawyers at the deteriorating state of affairs within their profession. Lest you might think that this has nothing to do with the general public, I beg to differ.
While on the bus (no: 7558), I had the opportunity to chat with lawyer ‘Goh’ who has been practising since 1995 and we exchanged notes on what we thought was unique about the event. He said that there was never a time in the nation’s history that lawyers took to the street in such massive numbers in a show of solidarity to request the government to address certain issues. I responded with the fact that civil society is equally unhappy but do not know how to react to the rot which is becoming more entrenched by the day. However, if the law fraternity takes the lead, I also mentioned to him that the general citizenry would view it as a reflection of a common cause i.e. that they are not alone. It may also embolden the ‘good guyz and gals’ within the judges circle, the RMP and even among the politicians to step forward. Perhaps, since I introduced myself as a blogger, ‘Goh’ was quite ‘chatty’ on other matters as well but I’d rather not say anything more coz it was ‘hot stuff’ and I do not want both of us to end up in ‘hot soup’. How come he didn’t suspect me as SB ah? Trusting lawyer, this one.
It was evident to me that the Bar Council took measures to inform all participants that this was their initiative. At the start of the bus ride, our designated security person informed us on the do’s and don’ts, including the part where political party participants are not allowed to display any political symbols nor slogans. Prior to the official walk, Ambiga Sreenevasan, the Bar president, reiterated the same call.
Therefore, for N.A., our de-facto Law minister in parliament to state several times in the MSM that the Bar Council and its members are influenced by the opposition and worse still, behaving like the opposition, it shows the unvarnished arrogance of this person. N.A. had the gall to further announce that there is no judiciary crisis in light of the ‘Walk for Justice’ event without realising the significance of his earlier statement on 24th September ’07, “I was contacted by the judge who denied he was the person on the other side“. Of course, no mention was made on which judge said these words. N.A. has also been consistent in his press statements in trying to get Malaysians to think that the Bar Council is only focussed on one issue i.e. the Lingamgate video. Good try, N.A. but we ain’t biting.
Let us ask ourselves some simple questions:
a) If there is separation of powers between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, why is a senior judge speaking with an UMNO appointed minister in parliament claiming innocence to potentially damaging evidence provided by an opposition party?
b) If it was the Chief Justice who said those words, as a lot people are inclined to believe, is N.A. his ‘boss’? Don’t you think a C.J. should not diminish his stature to speak with a lowly minister but instead, speak directly to the PM or DPM if at all necessary?
c) Is N.A. in charge of any investigation sanctioned by parliament and/or authorised by the Executive and/or have any legal jurisdiction on such matters?. As far as I know, the DPM announced the appointment of three persons to the independent (sic) panel and N.A. is not one of them.
So are we having a judiciary crisis? Damn right, we are when you consider N.A.’s shenanigans.
Lastly, let me put to you (this is me sounding lawyerly) this final question. Was a permit granted for the assembly? If so, the right of civil society to engage in a peaceful assembly as enshrined in the Federal Constitution was upheld and the lawyers have done all of us a great favour in setting a precedent. In Putrajaya, at that. If not, it does not diminish the fact that the lawyers have shown us, it is possible to do so. Why? Because, we can.
*Ooohh…yeah, yeah that’s it, dear. Gosh, your hands are working its magic on my aching legs. It feels so much better and………….uhhh…Peaches, dearie, that part doesn’t hurt. Sorry, luv. Did I hear you right? Oh, you wanna make it bigger? Hokay…silly old me.*
And the adventure continues.
Which reminds me. Rocky’s Bru has breached the 2nd million mark. Congrats, bro.
Update: Wattahack Rikey’s hugh collection of 180 photos here.