No wonder I kept saying that this guy is a prime example of dinosaurs in the government who don’t even give damn thing to understand the global changes that are affecting Malaysia as well.
The one thing he said that gave me an idea to write this post is (correct me if I am wrong):
(referring to the man making trouble) “Sack that guy who is also from Kedah!”
Of course, the show got kicked off with the showing of the 8-minute footage of the Lingamtape. Some called V.K Lingam as Shockalingam - a nod to a guy killed in Anniyan which everyone was laughing. Sure, the real laughing point is indeed “correct…correct…correct!”
But when I went through the whole thing, I came to realize that I can’t seem to trust the judiciary anymore. If I am to challenge a big government over compensation of damages, I would immediately end up one the losing side because of the intimidation and the partisan decision of judges. Some are pressured by the mob to go with them or face punishment. Which reminds me of what Tony told me of a Shearn Delamore lawyer representing MAS did in the lawsuit against Audra.
Reuters wrote:
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysian cinemas have found a powerful new weapon in their fight against movie pirates — military-style night-vision goggles.
After showing people to their seats, trained ushers are strapping on the goggles and scanning darkened cinemas around the country to spot anyone trying to make illegal copies of movies with hand-held video recorders or mobile phones.
Do we have to resort to using high-end equipment to catch pirates red-handed?
Real Raff wrote:
I was at Putrajaya’s Parcel D very very recently for a meeting at one of the blocks. It was an early morning affair and I arrived a little ahead of time only to be held back by aimless driving around for a parking spot! The whole place was full! No worries, I had a disabled parking sticker (the issuance of these stickers are strictly controlled by the government). Well, ha ha fat chance of it being any use. Not in Malaysia.
Egalitaria wrote:
Indonesia has now defined ‘indigenous Indonesians’ as those people who are Indonesian citizens without going through a naturalization process.
Now do a quick comparison with Malaysia. We know the following:
1. The term “indigenous” is not clearly defined in the constitution.
2. The term “Malay” is identified in the constitution as one who speaks the Malay language, adopts Malay culture and is a practising Muslim.
3. The term “bumiputera” is not clearly defined and does not appear in the Constitution. In fact, there is debate as to the origins of this term. Based on Tun Dr Ismail’s book, the term was first introduced in year 1972. (He also says the term was a curse.) Other sources state that it was first used in Parliament in 1965, while debating the act that would create the Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA), a government agency to preserve Bumiputera interests.
Blogger compares Indonesia’s Anti-Discrimination Bill with the way Malaysia handles its definition of “bumiputera”.