To clear the conscience of all parties, why can't the PM at least carry out a judicial review? No one could rest his soul in peace if this dark chapter of the judiciary is not revisited to verify the truth or falsehood of the case.

On 1988 judicial crisis: Quit or be sacked, Dr M told Salleh

MO8: With due respect to the present PM, he mentioned that he has his own way of doing things. But the sacking of Lord President Salleh Abas happened 18 years ago. Does that mean that the former Lord President has to wait for another18 years, if ever, to clear the air concerning his sacking?

Mind you, he was recently at the IJN (National Heart Institute). Two of the affected judges had passed away. One of the sacked judges, George Seah, had written about the events leading to the suspension of the five top judges.

To clear the conscience of all parties, why can't the PM at least carry out a judicial review? There is a clamour for justice to be restored. No one could rest his soul in peace if this dark chapter of the judiciary is not revisited to verify the truth or falsehood of the case. Of course, the PM has his way of doing things, but time is an important factor and he cannot afford to bide his time and take his time in this case. The affected judges who are still alive are pretty old; and let their legal services be not in vain.

Will the PM do it for the sake of the judiciary and for the people of Malaysia? Will Nazri, the minister in the PM's Department in charge of legal matters, heed the cries for justice and initiate his recommendation to the PM?

The case will haunt us until it is re-opened. Let truth prevail. Unearth all the evidences, and let truth be known as last.

Meng: Salleh, they do not look you in the eye because these are men devoid of any conscience and principles. They lie without blinking an eye. We know that now. We pray that our current PM would have the courage to review the case and do what is right before God and man - to let justice flow like a mighty river.

On Nazri spews fire, DAP MPs walk out

Ah Chong: Here is a man who has no self-control as we have seen over the last couple of years. Nazri behaves in a way that deserves no respect and has brought down the good name of Parliament. The BN government has chosen him to be a leader. Is this man the type of leader BN has to offer?

Nazri should apologise to Karpal and all wheelchair-bound people. These are sensitive issues one should not make light off. It's a shame and he must apologise.

Peter: Pak Lah has been advocating a 'first world mentality' among Malaysians. But the way Nazri carried himself in the august house of Parliament showed that we are far from it. He had been rude to the opposition, uncivil in his reply to questions arising. On top of that, he was not punished or reprimanded for calling others 'racist' some time back.

Yesterday's incident in ridiculing a physical handicapped Karpal Singh is another silly incident. As mentioned before, Glenn Hoddle, the England football manager, was asked to resign from his post for suggesting that disabled people were being made to pay for the sins of previous lives. I feel that Nazri had insulted and ridiculed thousands of physically handicapped and he ought to resign on his own accord or have him sacked by Pak Lah.

Now Pak Lah, here is a golden opportunity for you to walk the talk. Otherwise, I dare venture to say that it will take another millennium for us to achieve that status of 'first world mentality'.

On Pak Lah: I've not lost control

Ibnu Hakeem: Trying to assure the public that he is still in control, Pak Lah said, "There are still many people who don't understand ... Everybody has his way of doing things."

As the elected leader of the people, it is vital that Pak Lah understand the people and not the other way around. In fact, Pak Lah did claim to understand the people when he declared that 'the people do not want the bridge'. Even though the people never said so, by declaring thus he acknowledged the importance of understanding what the people wanted.

Since Pak Lah claims to understand what the people don't want (the bridge), then why doesn't he give the people what they do want? Or doesn't Pak Lah understand this? Maybe he needs a few years of more warm-up time.

PT Tan: I'm sorry to say, you can't have it your way you are our prime minister and we have a right to ask for certain things.

You already had three years. And if that is not enough, you must ask straight what else is needed and we will support you. So far, it is all air and no substance. You ask us to work with you, the question is where, how and what?

Corruption trials the two high profile cases has gone silent. Killings and murders still goes on and even now the police themselves are not spared. Religious extremism still exists and intensified, and in spite of your claims to the contrary and the country seems to be in a limbo. Education reform goes into reverse gear and little Napoleans still exists in spite of all the fuss.

No your way does not seem right.

YSM: Even with the PM's slow pace which he attributes to careful study and analysis so that nothing is missed out, we still have to make U-turns and embarrassing retraction to statements made. I hate to see if and when the PM makes a quick decision without careful thought.

This perception of flip-flop in policies will no doubt scare away foreign investors. Malaysia has had a good reputation in policy change which often catches foreign investors off-guard.

The slow pace coupled with status quo and rising inflation rate with low consumer spending and rising crime rate is not good formula for a successful nation.

On Hisham vs Ong - it's getting personal

Lee: It is rightly stated by MO8 that Hisham is rather personal on the matter. As a deputy minister of higher education with access to privilege information that has been given to him, is it wrong for him to speak out? Hisham should have directed his people to investigate the matter and if true, reported to ACA for actions to be taken against the culprits. And if the matter was not true, Ong Tee Keat should be strongly reprimanded. However, there is a saying ... no smoke, no fire.