YOURSAY ‘You don’t have to give instructions to AG to state BN’s stand on this.’

Nancy: Cabinet does not decide for AG

Aziz bin Kader: De facto law minister Nancy Shukri, you don’t need give instruction to the attorney-general (AG) but what is BN government’s stand on this issue?

Does the BN government agree with the AG or not? Can you give the statement in Parliament?

Mc44: Nancy, the big question is: Do you, or do you not agree with the AG's decision not to charge Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali? Just answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. ‘Not interfering in AG's decision’ is not the correct answer.

RZC: As a public figure whatever you say or do, even taking selfies like US President Barack Obama did, will be open to public scrutiny and this means the social media.

So Nancy, you have to be careful with the nonsense you read out and say and don't tell us what to believe or not.  

Please also don't be a half-past-six lawyer and de facto law minister.

There is no separation of powers between the executive itself as the cabinet and AG belongs to the executive arm.

The minister, I would think, is the boss of the AG and if the AG does not act properly the minister must step in. We pay you for that.

With all Nancy's statements, the real complaint has been lost.

What is being done about Ibrahim who threatened to burn Bibles and is he unfairly getting away with it?

Ksn: Nancy, in the face of the most obvious, wrong decision by the AG not to prosecute Ibrahim, did you as de facto law minister and a lawyer and the cabinet ask the AG for an explanation on his decision?

Yes, the cabinet does not decide for the AG but you, the cabinet, which is the government proper, the boss, have the right to ask that pertinent question and the AG being a civil servant has the responsibility to reply.

After exposing yourself and the cabinet being  incompetent, it is wiser now to hold your horses, rather than making all of you look more and more silly.  

Ipohcrite: The AG reports to the cabinet; the cabinet expects the AG to discharge his duty judiciously.

So, if the AG fails to perform his duty properly, it is only right that the cabinet takes action against him instead of giving the excuse that to do so is to meddle in the AG's work.

As the Ibrahim case stands, the cabinet should have sacked the AG; otherwise, the cabinet is sending out the message that it fully condones the AG's action which has garnered severe criticism all over.

Nancy once again mounts a poor defence over the entire sordid episode of selective prosecution and instead confirms the rakyat's suspicion of the cabinet's tacit approval not to prosecute Ibrahim.

Oldtimer: Not enough evidence? Even Ibrahim admitted he said it. What evidence they want?

All this makes one wonder who is in charge of Malaysia? Prime minister? Home minister? AG? Police chief? De facto law minister? Maybe Malaysia is in autopilot?  

Mr KJ John: Hey menteri, why are you so clever now, after the fact?  Did you not think about full implications before you simply became a 'postman’?

Next time, please learn that you are no one's postman. You are a minister of the government of Malaysia.

Slumdog: Does it not make sense that the cabinet has the power or authority to override or not accept the decision of the AG?

The AG's position may be independent of the cabinet but is his position so powerful that whatever he decides, has to be complied with?

So if the AG makes an erroneous, flawed or foolish decision, the cabinet has to accept it?

And now that Nancy is lost for words she wants to call a halt to any further discussion on the issue.

Pl3gm4tic: Please define what is a healthy debate. If you do not talk about it, how would you know it is right or wrong?

Or you would only say it is healthy when you agree to the outcome of a debate? Not a very convincing argument, Nancy.

I think it should be on record how redundant the de facto law minister portfolio is if they are just the messenger for the AG. Shouldn't the AG’s Chambers (AGC) speak for themselves then?

Aries46: The de facto law minister's conduct in this matter belies an attitude unbecoming of her status.

As a minister she must take responsibility for her statements and respond accordingly instead of resorting to denials and passing the buck to others.

This particular issue where Ibrahim's threat to burn the Bible was shielded from the recent spate of sedition swoops is contentious as it smacked of bias and double standards.

There has been a public outcry against such a clear case of injustice and Nancy's inadequacy and continued belligerence has only served to aggravate the people's frustration at the manner of law enforcement.

Her claim that the AGC has briefed the cabinet in this matter but its rationality is beyond the cabinet is laughable.

It amounts to an admission that threats of destruction of the scriptures of any faith are permissible in law in Bolehland.

As the Bible-burning Ibrahim Ali saga continues, the de facto law minister seems to take us into new realms of legal realities in Bolehland.  

Speaking sense: Nancy should take her own advice and be a responsible Malaysian - that is to think before saying something careless and inflammatory especially in a parliamentary reply.

Now she says it was because of not enough evidence, but in her reply the reason given was that it is all right to threaten a violent action as long as you claim to defend the sanctity of your religion.

So what is the truth, Nancy?

The cabinet does not decide for the AG but the AG decides for the cabinet and so can force cabinet minister Nancy to say what he wants her to say in Parliament, whether she agrees with it or not.

So far Nancy has not told Malaysians whether she thinks Ibrahim should be charged or not.

The right thing for her to do is still the same - apologise and resign.