'Undermine the image of MACC? What image? There was no image to start off with and since its inception, its image has gotten from bad to worse to rotten.'
'Teoh murdered': MACC lodges report against Suara Keadilan
Tan Kian Khim: Let's re-contextualise MACC's so-called 'investigation' of Teoh Beng Hock's murder to date: If MACC had applied the same attitude to investigate the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, it would have concluded that Altantuya shot herself several times, dragged her own corpse to the dumping ground in the jungle, and then proceeded to methodically blow her own corpse up with C4 explosives. Case closed, MACC-style.
Geronimo: Undermine the image of MACC? What image? There was no image to start off with and since its inception, its image has gotten from bad to worse to rotten. What Suara Keadilan did (if at all they have committed a crime) is nothing compared with the death of TBH and the reluctance to investigate that Toyo guy (Selangor opposition leader Mohd Khir Toyo).
These two (amongst many others) are enough to destroy the image of MACC for good. It is way beyond redemption now.
Maroondah: Datuk (Ahmad Said Hamdan), your statement is full of hypocrisy.
1.You claimed that MACC officers have feelings too, but yet they interrogated a witness (not a suspect) right up to 2am. Is this humane?
2.You talk about the "high morality" of the MACC officers, but why did they investigate a case involving an alleged abuse of RM2,500 when we have tons of multi-million corruption cases staring at you? PKFZ, AIMST, Maika, the auditor-general's report - do they ring any bells?
3. You said Teoh's death was the most challenging in your career, but yet you brushed it aside as a small matter when he died.
Stinger: A party (PKR) in decline and its leader under siege would resort to such sensationalism. The people wanted the royal inquiry. How can this be when political organs are seeking mileage on this poor boy's death?
As for the good doctor (Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand) from Thailand, I believe she knew not the ways of a party such as this and a leader that leads them.
Cala: I want to touch on two cases. First, subjudice: if a legal case is being discussed in a court of law and it is therefore illegal for anyone to talk about it on the TV, in newspaper, etc. I thought the key word is talking. Is guessing, speculating, and hypothesising forms of talking? Dr Pornthip is an experienced pathologist. She is careful with what to say, especially when asked to comment on the second post-mortem by reporters.
Now the crux of the matter is, to what extent can ‘freedom of speech' be allowed in debates on issues of ‘public interest'? Is the interest of MACC more important than the ‘public interest'? Is it not the objective of the inquest is to unravel the truth?
Second, say X newspaper is carrying a report that says Y politician is corrupted by taking RM100,000 from Z. Y sues X in court. In this case I thought, all media are expected not to report anything relating to Y, unless of course it has been discussed in the open court. Subjudice applies to case 2.
Federal Court judge Augustine Paul dies
GK: It will be interesting to see how's the next judge try Sodomy II case. Will he uses Augustine Paul's judgment of Sodomy I as precedent?
A judge judges the cases come under him, in turn, he shall be judged on his judgment day. Same thing applies to other judges, especially the inquest for the death of Teoh Beng Hock, A Kugan and MB Nizar Jamaluddin cases. Anyhow, my condolences to the family of Augustine Paul.
ONG: A long time ago I read somewhere that if you read all the epitaphs, you will get the impression that there are no bad and evil humans in the world. One day I visited a graveyard and spend a few hours reading as many epitaphs as possible and discovered that it was indeed true that from the epitaphs, there are only good people in this world.
Today, after reading all the comments on the late Augustine Paul, I do not need to know who was Augustine Paul and what he had done to conclude that this is one really bad person.
Hindraf vs Hindraf: One faction sues, the other makes police report
Dr Alagendran: I agree with many here that Indians should be united to end Umno's racist hegemony. But that unity will not prevail until the actual identity and objectives of these two brothers are exposed to the public.
The first split in Hindraf happened when P Uthayakumar accused K Vasanthakumar as being a special branch officer, now ASP (which is which, Uthaya, make up your mind) as soon as Vasantha asked the brothers to show accounts of public money collected. Vasantha's daughter almost died whilst he was in detention, you expect us to believe he is a SB officer? Just because he questioned you on money?
Then second split was when V Ganabatirau was accused a ‘mandore' when he questioned about money too. And then P Ramasamy, and then A Sivanesan and then S Manickavasagam - one by one, everyone was labeled ‘mandore'. But these two brothers refused to answer what has happened to the money.
Moonwalker: It is sad to see our Hindraf leaders fighting among themselves. I admired them during the peak of the struggle when they held hand to fight courageously against Umno in 2007. As a result, they created the biggest change in the mindset of Malaysians.
We ordinary people don't even question the money collected. RM700,000 is just peanuts for fighting for the marginalised Indian who have been victimised by Umno for 50 years. It is the biggest service Hindraf has done. I donated RM30 during the road show.
I'm not bothered much about the money. Of course, there are some groups take advantage collecting money for their own benefit, but you can't make Hindraf liable for it.
Premnath: Hindraf led the community to one of the most emotional moments ever, and are now leading the community towards becoming the worst laughing stock ever!
