I don't usually read Brendan Pereira's comment pieces. No, not because I do or don't like him but because he has become predictable (and his 1-2-3 and A-B-C styles don't appeal to me). He used to write some readable pieces when he was the Singapore Straits Times correspondent in Kuala Lumpur, though.
I got hold of yesterday's news and read his latest A-B-C because Bandit, this blog's frequent visitor, found it fit to discuss the piece of in the context of the "deconstruction of Dr M".
At W, I said "Wicked!".
Brendan wrote: W is for winners. He may have been stripped of his position and pension benefits but in the court of public opinion, Syed Ahmad Idid is a winner. Now he should use that goodwill and do the right thing - lodge a report with the ACA.
The former judge had given NST, in Brendan's words, "arguably the interview of the year, speaking candidly about being forced to resign 10 years ago after alleging corruption and abuse of power in the judiciary".
Did the incorruptible former judge think he was doing the right thing by breaking his silence (at a time when silence is eloquent, according to Brendan, and elegant, according to Musa Hitam)?
Brendan wrote: S is for silence. Abdullah won praise for his eloquent silence in the face of some below-the-belt criticism. But his Government cannot keep silent for too long. A one-way flow of disinformation will only serve to confuse. That is why the Cabinet decided that all questions raised by Dr Mahathir will be answered in full.
Didn't the former judge do the right thing by giving the interview, after his own eloquent and elegant decade-long silence?
It is Brendan and the newspaper that should do the right thing, which any good newspaper and editor would do: see it through, bro, to the end.
The former judge was seeking justice, not popularity, when he went to the NST with his story. Now the NST and its group editor are telling him to do the right thing and go to the ACA.
And that, too, after de facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz had said (June 13) that there will be no further action on the (former) judge's letter.