I would like to raise some questions on Nazri Abdul Aziz, the so-called de facto law minister, in response to his views regarding the current situation involving the judiciary in Malaysia.
Firstly, he says that there is no crisis as a crisis involves the whole country. He further goes on to state that nobody talks about it. With all due respect, I'm quite amazed that he knows the whole country personally; it's not easy to know that many people (correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked, Malaysia has a population close to 30 million).
Pun aside, he says that none of his fellow MPs are concerned. Again this is a very biased view to take, isn't it? I mean will a Barisan Nasional MP actually raise his concerns about the crisis in the judiciary to a BN minister and not expect to get disciplined for that.
As for common folk such as myself, would any of us really dare raise our concerns (ISA anybody?) and if we do dare face the wrath of ISA to whom do we raise our concerns to - the biased executive (such as Nazri?) only to let our concerns fall on deaf ears, or say maybe the corrupt judiciary (corrupt because they would just follow every beck and command of the executive, after all their appointment comes from that branch, no?).
So now we have the situation where a group of lawyers under the umbrella of the Bar Council have decided to make their voice heard. But Nazri is not concerned. He disregards them as mere chit-chatters. Why, I beg to ask? Is it because they realise that it would be useless to go through the normal bureaucratic means?
He further goes on to say that the government is happy with the system because that is the system they inherited from the British and it has worked for 50 years. Dare I not mention that the South Africans were very happy with the apartheid system that they inherited from the British and likewise if we go further back in history, the North Americans were also very happy with the slavery system they inherited from the British?
Some might say that I'm going to the extremes but is corruption of the advocates of justice not a serious enough issue? Maybe not unless you happen to be Anwar Ibrahim, Lina Joy, Shamala Sathiyaseelan, Nyona Tahir, etc.
But Nazri does raise a valid question - why walk when lawyers are supposed to be apolitical? I happen to have a law degree and am currently pursuing my Bar vocational course in England but this is new to me. Thank you, Nazri, for teaching me something none of my lecturers have. Tell me, when do you plan to start giving legal lectures? But you wouldn't be able to, would you? After all, you are political (to everyone else, don't despair if this makes no sense to you at all, it actually is a whole load of nonsense with all due respect to Nazri).
Nazri also states that walking for justice is dishonourable. In what sense, may I ask? If the cause was to oppose rape, would he change his mind? But then again, this is coming from the same government that refused an NGO permission to hold an event rallying against rape in the streets of Bangsar... so you are right, peaceful walks are dishonourable.
Maybe the Bar Council should have held a convention and raised a 'keris' against the judges to garner the support of the government (monkey see, monkey do right?), Also Nazri, for your kind information, I still hold the Bar Council in esteem even after the walk and I doubt other Malaysians have taken to saying that we are putting up with the Bar Council because there is no better alternative (the same cannot be said about the government).
However, I do agree with you, Nazri, when you say that the witness in the video clip should step forward even if his life is at stake. After all, he wouldn't want to end up like a certain Anwar Ibrahim - it wasn't enough to throw him into jail on charges of corruption, they had to add sodomy to it and abused him in jail, and when his spirit is broken to bits (along with his back might I add), he was released.
The moral of that story - being afraid of the government is certainly no excuse. You couldn't have put it better, Nazri.