A Muhyiddin-Najib split over 114A?
VOXPOP 'How does presuming guilt unless proven innocent combat terrorism and cybercrime? We are not stupid, so don't insult our intelligence.'
Cabinet did not seek review of Section 114A
Tholu:
We should be reminded of the fact that the 'critics' who the cabinet claims had misinterpreted the law and took it out of context include experts who are highly familiar and experienced in law.
These law experts brief the courts on the interpretations of the law. As such, if the critics had misinterpreted the law, then the judiciary is also capable of misinterpreting the law.
Further, the cabinet justifies the need for Section 114A to combat terrorism and cybercrime in view of the repeal of the ISA (Internal Security Act) and other preventive detention laws.
In other words, it admits that it had only dropped the form of these laws and has actually supplanted it in substance with the amendment to the Evidence Act, something which the public had all the time suspected.
DPM Muhyiddin Yassin, who has openly defied PM Najib Razak on certain issues, is at it again. Is Najib going to return to Malaysia as a PM or going to be forced to toe the line Muhyiddin draws? Is a coup d'etat imminent? Either way, BN is doomed.
Slumdog: It appears to be an open secret that Muhyiddin is back-stabbing and trying to undermine Najib at every opportunity in an attempt to rise above the Umno cesspool to become PM.
As part of its political strategy leading up to the general election, PKR should highlight Muhyiddin's frequent contradictions and the constant embarrassment he causes Najib.
Then we sit back and see how they defend each other and pretend that everything is okay between them.
Odin: This is not the first time that Muhyiddin has publicly contradicted and thus embarrassed Najib. We all know about his ‘Malay first, Malaysian second' pronouncement soon after the announcement of 1Malaysia.
Perhaps it is poetic justice administered in a roundabout way - second PM Abdul Razak stabbed first PM Tunku Abdul Rahman, and now Muhyiddin does it to his son.
Kgen: How does presuming guilt unless proven innocent combat terrorism and cybercrime? We are not stupid, so don't insult our intelligence.
Lim Chong Leong: How the law is not meant to be used and how it can be abused because the wordings says so, are two very different things.
It's like how the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance were never meant to detain political opponents but terrorists. It is the latter that we are concerned about and it is not reading anything out of context. It is in plain English and we can read.
Disgusted: Isn't this a tactic of Najib and BN to create a problem and then back out, claim to solve it and show he is listening to the people's wishes to score brownie points?
Most of the issues are self-created by Umno and then MCA or MIC or Gerakan, etc, will appeal to Najib and the PM will say that he is listening to the Chinese through MCA or Indians through MIC.
So, there people must therefore vote for them to ensure that their respective interests are protected by someone who represents them in the government and not take it up to the opposition, which cannot do anything for them.
iCool: If BN cannot accept what the rakyat demand, then the rakyat must use the vote to change the government.
Imposing laws against freedom of expression is not justified and repulsive. Section 114A will see an end to the ruling government. Voters will know what to do at GE13, vote ABU (Anything But Umno).
Take note: ‘114' in Cantonese dialect means ‘tiap tiap hari mati ' (die every day). BN beware.
Wira: The ISA was never meant to silence critics and opposition to government but it was, nevertheless, used and abused.
So please spare us the crap that the government needs Section 114A to combat terrorism and cybercrime in view of the repeal of the ISA and other preventive detention laws.
I guarantee you that Umno-BN will support a revisit of the Evidence Act if they lose the next general election.
Puncak Niaga in the red, but top gun gets millions
Trying To Be Smart: A new provision should be incorporated into the Companies Act 1965 to regulate public companies or GLCs (government-linked companies) to pay their executive directors a sum not exceeding a certain percentage of the profit that is deemed fair and reasonable.
Where such companies are running at a loss, only a certain lesser fixed sum deemed fair and reasonable should be paid.
Such a provision in the law is timely, considering that it is not uncommon for executive directors of failing companies being paid large disproportionate sums even as the companies are failing and would soon go under. A committee should be formed to work out the details of the provision.
Mohan Gandhi: Syabas chief Rozali Ismail does not need a court case to show his income. If he wants to be open, he himself can provide the detailed account of his income from both Syabas and Puncak Niaga.
Why when the company is losing RM75 million, the CEO/director draws RM8.4 million in annual remunerations? Doesn't this show who the rent-seekers are, and in the guise of responsible bumiputera bosses?
Anonymous #40538199: Labis MP Chua Tee Yong should investigate whether Rozali was indeed paid that amount and to consider whether he should challenge Rozali to debate as to whether the hefty salary is justified.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .
For more news and views that matter, subscribe and support independent media for only RM0.36 sen a day:
Subscribe now