Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
MB vs MB: Where are Appeals Court's grounds?
Published:  Jun 19, 2009 10:47 PM
Updated: 11:49 PM

vox populi small thumbnail 'Any observer would find it strange that judges could decide before having backed up the decision with solid reasons. And they should not be taking so much time writing them out.'

On Nizar appeals, seeks 11-member bench

SH Huang: The Appeals Court gave a five-minute decision while the High Court judge gave a 78-page written judgment on who is the rightful MB of Perak.

I would have thought that, like proving a geometrical theorem, you give the 'grounds’ first and having weighed the evidence, as the chief justice had pointed out, come to a decision.

But giving the decision without first giving the 'grounds' would be tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. In proving a theorem, we give our 'grounds' (reasons) to convince the reader or examiner that we have proven our case.

Then, and only then, do we write Q.E.D which stands for 'quod erat demonstrandum' which means 'that is what I wanted to prove and I have proved it.'.

A good judge will 'prove' his decision by giving all the grounds (reasons). He does not jump to the conclusion without showing why his decision is such and such.

In my view, the High Court judge did a good job. He was meticulous and read out all the authorities.

Backed up by solid evidence, he came to the conclusion that Nizar was the rightful Perak MB at all material times.

On the other hand, the Appeals Court judges read out in five minutes their decision!

After having given their decision that Zambry was the rightful MB, they said that they needed time – one week – to give the 'grounds' of their decision.

Any right-thinking observer would find it strange that judges could write Q.E.D. first before having backed it up with solid reasons.

If they had the reasons handy, they should not be taking so much time writing them out.

It is 'quod erat demonstrandum'. Not 'Quite Easily Done’.

On Low quits MCA, vows impartiality in PKFZ probe

Maniam Sankar: Shouldn’t TI Malaysia with its committee of luminaries be making a statement on their Paul Low’s appointment to the PKFZ scandal investigations panel? I ask them to consider Low’s statement that he joined MCA for expediency.

Why then did he join as a life member and not as a term member? Surely he was showing commitment.

All the decision-makers to be investigated are MCA’s top guns. Low’s independence must therefore be suspect. If TI Malaysia keeps silent, they too must be suspect.

And so that I can consider my options in politics, can Minister Ong Tee Keat tell us when he would have felt responsible for recommending the release of a further RM1.2 billion in funds for PKFZ?

He says he had to recommend the sum after only two months in office but can’t be responsible. That makes political office look really good to me.

Ong, I am a highly-qualified person, I assure you. Could you get me a political job with say a three-month ‘no responsibility honeymoon' period?

Heck, can you make that a six-month honeymoon and I’ll pay you to get the job? You hear me, Minister Ong?

Ex-minister Azmi Khalid, why did you even have to ask the PAC members if you were suited for the job of looking into the PKFZ fiasco?

I like to think that you had something resembling a conscience that was pricked.

Please tell us how you can impartially prosecute given that the main suspects were your comrades at the material times and probably still are.

Surely you cannot. Surely you must leave the PAC.

On Foreign maids to get one day off a week

Joe: I refer the Human Resources Ministry’s overzealousness to so-call 'protect' the maids in Malaysia.

I do believe there must be some limit before we give the impression that a maid is to be treated like a queen in this country.

There are just numerous cases of abuse by maids on children in the absence of their parents in this country and their incompetence has created so much trouble that they create unbearable stress to their employers.

Some employers, unfortunately, are too stressed out to handle their idiotic behavior. The minister’s inexperience will create a lot of trouble for employers in this country.

Thomas Lee: Why are some Christians not respecting the biblical fundamental human right of foreign maids to have a day off each week?

In fact, in addition to the weekly off-day, they should not be allowed to work more than 10 hours a day.

As a Christian, I feel terribly ashamed of many so-called church members who refuse to give their maids their weekly off-day, although it is the fourth of the Ten Commandments.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia, which comprises the Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM), the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) and the Roman Catholic Church of Malaysia, should come out with a statement endorsing the weekly off-day for the maids.

To give the excuse that the maids may get into bad company during the day-off is simply an insult to our fellow human being.

Why don't we stop allowing our working young, or even old, people the day off too, as they too could get into trouble if given the free time?

People who object to other human beings having their well-deserved rest day are selfish, greedy and hypocrites to the core. And Christians should not be among them.