Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
Blatant show of arrogance by Shahrizat
Published:  Mar 19, 2013 12:16 AM
Updated: 7:15 AM

YOURSAY 'As I understand standard court procedures, the witness is supposed to only answer the question asked by the defence counsel, not answer a question with another question.'

Shahrizat: Why should I apologise over NFC?

your say Datos: Shahrizat Abdul Jalil is a former magistrate and owned a law firm and yet she rambled incoherently to lawyer Ranjit Singh's questions.

This is a result of BN digging in its heels for 50 odd years and being beyond reproach. Ranjit was being too kind to her.

"She added that Rafizi (Ramli)'s attempt to mislead the country had also caused fellow BN leaders to turn on her." If it was that simple, a few more misleads by PKR strategic director Rafizi and the whole of BN would be turning against one another.

Confused: Indeed, Ranjit was too nice to her. Shahrizat still thinks that she owns the court. Please answer the question and stop diverting it.

The judge should also reprimand her and tell her not to waste the court's time. If she does it again, then charge her for contempt.

Humblevoice: Yes, a wife would not need to apologise for what her husband did. But Shahrizat's role in the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal is not merely that of a wife, but a cabinet minister.

Furthermore, her husband is not a mere businessman, but one who is involved in a RM250 million government project.

It is unforgivable for a cabinet minister to pledge ignorance over his/her spouse's allegedly criminal activities. It is doubly unforgivable for a cabinet minister to silently allow his/her spouse to carry out allegedly criminal activities that involves public funds.

Anonymous #22065633: Shahrizat, if you are a normal wife, no one will ask you to apologise, but you are not just any wife, you are the minister who may have an influence over the granting the project which benefits your own family. Can you see the difference and blatant conflict of interest here, my dear?

Gen2indian: As I understand standard court procedures, the witness is supposed to only answer the question asked by the defence counsel, not answer a question with another question.

Why is the presiding judge allowing this woman to get away with contempt? Are there any lawyers out there who would care to enlighten me?

Sali Tambap: This woman has no sense of morality and cannot differentiate between what is right and wrong.

Also, some time back, we heard the de facto law minister saying that if his son accepted a 'bribe' - in this case, a very expensive car - then it had nothing to do with him even though he knew the donor, who was a suspect in a corruption case.

With these kinds of politicians running our country, it is little wonder that many of their children and relatives have become filthy rich from ill-gotten wealth through the influence of their kin in high positions in the government.

Hacks: No need to apologise to us, we just want our money back, and you and your family to go to prison.

Shahrizat lashes out at lawyer in defamation suit

Cantabrigian: Shahrizat, what is wrong with you? You were a lawyer yourself, and you are now accusing a fellow lawyer of being political when he was just doing his duty, i.e. cross-examining you.

He asked a valid question, but you responded with an emotional answer. You will not win this suit, I guarantee you.

Anonymous #19098644: Ask NFC to furnish documents showing the discounts that it purportedly gave to all customers.

Secondly, ask for the cost structure of the company to determine the break even price of the beef that was sold. Then determine if the sales price is below cost.

Based on this, it can be proven that these discounts were nothing more than transfer-pricing to cheat the Income Tax Department and siphon off cash from the organisation and to subsidise the purchaser.

Onyourtoes: Baloney is getting out of hand in Malaysia. Here, you cannot criticise or point out the wrongdoings of someone important, either in the government or in a political party.

If you do so, you will be accused of being unjustly critical (like for example, being envious of that person's position of power and influence), not because you want to right the wrong committed by that person.

This former minister has failed to see that she was not reappointed as a senator, and hence, her minister's position. She has failed to see that her family was already charged in court with a fiduciary offence. What is there to argue about any more?

Jaded: What a joke. Her family gets the money, condos and cows (what few that were produced for facade), while she claims ignorance of the deals. Now the whistleblower is being sued in court.

The problem with Malaysia is that simple fundamental issues like these get twisted and overshadowed by irrelevant ones.

Who authorised the loan to the family? On what basis was the authorisation made? Was there any declaration by Shahrizat to the public that her family was getting the deal/loan? What has happened to the money? How is it being recovered?

Simple questions, but answers seem to be lacking.

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 .