Thursday, April 19, 2007

Zaid Ibrahim vs Nazri Aziz

The Big Debate. On 24 April 2007, the Bar Council will host a debate between Zaid Ibrahim and i Mohamed Nazri on the motion: There is a Need, in Malaysia, to Establish an Independent Judicial Commission in Relation to the Promotion and Appointment of Judges.
It is open to the public but seats are limited. For enquiries please contact Lojini 03-20313003 X 101 or email rezib@malaysianbar.org.my]. To know why they are arguing this motion, go here.

11 comments:

monsterball said...

The Bar Council voiced out in favour of Tun Salleh Abbas case to be reopened as against a small fry minister....what happened? NOTHING!!
Why not put a debate on the real issue? Look at the Doha Debate...real live issues.
Why debate on suggesting a law....what I suspect the public maybe not too interested as the Bar Council have proven toothless kittens...not effective. I wonder why...too many bad apples in the law sector?...will do anything and everything? MONEY...MONEY..MONEY RULES? Check it out!!

Anonymous said...

Nazri never loses does he? Even if he does, will he admit defeat and do something about it? Will his stance change?

Aishah said...

Why can't the existing system of the Chief Justice, being the representative of His Majesties Malay Rulers, appoint and elevate the Justices he sees fit into higher positions, within the judicial system?

Isn't that Constitutional?

The irony to this debate is, it will be held by the organisation until recently, had countless internal issues and organisational and procedural problem, as petty as the right quorum to legal commence its annual meetings.

Its always the case of too many cook spoils the broth. Too many 'learned' people giving too many interpretations to a system only they understand. Fun isn't it?

Lets face it. Its all Greek to the rest of us!

Its been a while since we attend a good school debate. That, will encourage my presence :)

monsterball said...

Time is precious. Don't waste time. Make time work for you and not let time controls you..so if anyone feel worthwhile to attend the debate...by all means go..then come back and ask yourself...have you learn anything or saw some jokers talking cock...that you don't understand..but pretend to do so..looking smart with an idiotic smile.
For me...reading a Groucho Marx stupid vulgar book teaches me more than those legal people.

elviza said...

Dear Rocky,

What's the point? those two in the debate to ensure the independence of the judiciary? Come on......

monsterball said...

Now check this out!! How many have experienced given to a lawyer or a legal firm...they accepts it...then you agree to the fees ....then they ask for this or that...putting you in a position that if they looses a case...it is because you did not give sufficient evidences to win a case?
Then...if a company is cheated by another company with clear evidences and proves...they accepts it...then ask you to bring those staffs that have resigned or else your case is weak. They concentrate of your weak points to defend themselves...and not a company suing another ...as if a staff is suing the other side.
Worst of all...building up a divorce case. They recommend a private detective..you hire and that detective plays for both sides...thus a simple case becoming big...because the accused is already been warned and thus can give all sorts of replies....making the lawyer fat with legal fees...making a hill into a mountain case.
Then you get shocked all of a sudden...the judge went against all your legimate claims. WHY??...hahahahaha. Go guess it yourself.
Then one wins a case after few hearings because the accused lawyer did not come punctually. Judge gives verdict in favour of you....YET..you see your lawyer...being so honourable by telling the judge not to close the case and give the defendant lawyer another chance...thus case not closed!! Close means no more income...not closed...he will ask for lawyers fees more and more.
Does everyone knows the lawyer should be paid the the loosing party? So be smart...tell your case and get them to commit to such thing and if you are going to loose...why fight in court?

Anonymous said...

Rocky

Both are debating issue of no significance to the public at large. This is just a political ploy to further their personal political objective to gain attention.

Why not debate on more important issues as follows:

1. Whether Badawi was effective in his fight agasitn corruption?

2. Whether there was transparency in Badawi's administration?

3. Wehter there is a need to have an independent body called the Ombudsman to check on maladministration of the government?

If they dare to have debate on such issue then I do respect them. Unfortunately, I know for sure that they will not dare because they themselve may be a subject for discussion!

monsterball said...

By the way, have anyone experience lawyers after accepting to represent you have an art to ask you all sorts of rediculous evidences needed to fight the case successfully..an art to defend themselves..if they loose your case?
Well I suggest you discuss all the details and ASK THEM can they win? If so...what's the problem...defendant need to pay the cost..meaning his lawyers fee paid by them...not you.
If you cannot win the case....why sue?

The Slayer said...

Bru,

Let me speak the language that politician can understand.

In particular these two.

Both are full of themselves. They think of themselves as liberals.

They are the cigar and wine-type.

They both think they are God's gift to the Malayu.

But mind my word -- if Zaid is readmitted to Umno, the debate will die.

Now Zaid is an outsider, sacked from Umno for alleged involvement in money politics. He was unlucky. Worse culprits are riding high in Umno.

It's all a hypocrisy!

neurolept said...

Slayer,
You sure about Zaid is not in UMNO anymore? Thought he was just suspended only and even that suspension period is over..

If so, how can he's still the BN MP for Kota Bharu. Shouldn't he vacate his seat or something?

Anonymous said...

hahaha wat a joke, no need to debate about the issue. it's just a political ploy to get more mileage on their political career. they should debate on other serious matters...poverty etc. etc. stupid joke.
zaid.. hahaha cakap tak serupa bikin, he's a guy yang main kuda, drinking wine and then want to fight for Syariah... wat a joke.