tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post3586173401644073067..comments2024-02-22T02:33:21.869+08:00Comments on Another Brick in the Wall: Possibilities not thought ofA Voicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01780035743502972342noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-84728230714496115052016-02-19T06:35:58.797+08:002016-02-19T06:35:58.797+08:00http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/02/18/a...http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/02/18/attorney-general-cancels-meeting-with-macc-panels/<br /><br />Your source was on the moneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-83440369557864142912016-02-17T07:01:14.794+08:002016-02-17T07:01:14.794+08:006:50
Maybe you should know a bit more of the form...6:50<br /><br />Maybe you should know a bit more of the former judge.<br /><br />You wrote: "..no logical answer is given, no rational thinking mind would ever believe it." I believe you are best to speak for yourself and the few and limited people who share your view. But not to represent some mass grouping of people.<br /><br />It brings us to the subsequent interesting issue. <br /><br />What is truth? Who determine it other than god and the final determination of truth by God is only in the afterlife?<br /><br />By using System? Public opinion? Perception???<br /><br />7:10 PM<br /><br />You senario not complete. A certain source with link to the issue in hand said MACC did not give right money trail.<br /><br />We wonder how will AG win in court with faulty money trail? A Voicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01780035743502972342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-43441818176678188932016-02-16T19:10:42.129+08:002016-02-16T19:10:42.129+08:00To Practising lawyer:
Don't you think the case...To Practising lawyer:<br />Don't you think the case could be referred to as a precedent in the future? Let's say that I am the Chief Police Commissioner of Kuala Lumpur, and at the same time I am the chairman of Yayasan Anak Yatim Malaysia with 100,000 registered orphans. Let's also say that the same Saudi prince deposits into my personal account some RM10 million which I later withdraw the money and close my account. And let's also say that I have indeed returned RM5 million to that prince. After being tipped off, and press-charged with misappropriation because me as a public officer and suddenly my personal bank account has grown fat with that RM10 million , couldn't I quote the current case as a precedent, claiming that I have returned the money and spent the rest giving each orphan RM50? No?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-69744198430333300182016-02-16T18:50:14.332+08:002016-02-16T18:50:14.332+08:00Your statement that the questioning game is all ac...Your statement that the questioning game is all accusation has an uncanny resemblance of previous humorous answers given by the receiver himself and other politicians. It is still an issue which lingers on among rational thinking minds. It is no longer an accusation when the AG himself has verified that the money was indeed transferred into the receiver's personal account, and claimed that part of it had been returned. No proof is required to show how the money was spent or how it was returned. As long as no logical answer is given, no rational thinking mind would ever believe it.<br />Maybe it is something like what the former judge said that the AG can't nor will press the charges because he is being appointed by Agong under the advice of the receiver. The moment he want to press the charge, he will be replaced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-19918345091349854622016-02-16T10:52:13.131+08:002016-02-16T10:52:13.131+08:00Fair issue raised, bedbag.
However, we disagree i...Fair issue raised, bedbag.<br /><br />However, we disagree it is a pre-puberty response. In fact it is a mature and adult response. All the issue raised have been written before and with all the links, so do go back to read. Hate to rewind. <br /><br />A mature reading adult would stick to the subject of this posting and that is whatever presumption made usually left out possibilities. By answering all those issues, it would divert from the message. So best not answer. <br /><br />Appreciate commentators just state your point and that is it. All questions usually have pre-empted answers and replies. Lets not waste time. <br /><br />Then other commentators can response or propose other views. THese questioning game is all accusation. Nothing more. So state your accusation clearly.<br /><br />A Voicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01780035743502972342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-4168947740497016772016-02-16T10:44:47.643+08:002016-02-16T10:44:47.643+08:00no bro. when someone asks you a question, and a si...no bro. when someone asks you a question, and a simple one at that, you dont retort like you're going through pre=puberty.<br /><br />so what is the use of the law if when it is clear as day, you dont follow it?<br /><br />its pretty obvious that the stance today is "laws are made to be broken". so many bullshits bro. im surprised that you answered that way.<br /><br />simply saying that "..have advance beyond those issues" shows how disconnect you are. you can repeat the same thing and pretend that you are on the next station, but shouldnt the issues raised here be a sort of gauge? <br /><br />clearly people have not moved on. wanna know why? cause the rules were clear. if the premier wants to play by his OWN rule, maybe he should play another game?bedbagsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-16476334083472431912016-02-16T10:38:43.047+08:002016-02-16T10:38:43.047+08:001:07
The law is not as simple as yes or no. This ...1:07<br /><br />The law is not as simple as yes or no. This or that. Understand that first.<br /><br />You are playing a cheap debate laced with quoted sections of the law.Practising lawyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-12352792754096817132016-02-16T10:23:52.533+08:002016-02-16T10:23:52.533+08:00BK
You are recycling comments from your facebook ...BK<br /><br />You are recycling comments from your facebook and not reading this posting. Surprise you have stooped low to trolling.<br /><br />11:33 <br /><br />save that insult intended comment elsewhere<br /><br />gie7<br /><br />public debate or discourse have advance beyond those issues. Maybe you should research answers at your own time from past postings. <br /><br />Malaih nak repeat. Berita pukul 8 pun sudah tidak ada replay. <br /><br />1:07<br /><br />You have to find your own answers and form your opinion. Others cannot answer for you. It is a widely discuss issue. <br /><br />If you are fair minded, you raise all relevent questions and look for right answers.A Voicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01780035743502972342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-77344268303362552712016-02-15T23:33:23.149+08:002016-02-15T23:33:23.149+08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-48897063903834906032016-02-15T22:29:14.524+08:002016-02-15T22:29:14.524+08:00AG operate based on CPC. If the criteria checklist...AG operate based on CPC. If the criteria checklist is met, chances of conviction for criminal cases is 90 - 99%.<br /><br />MACC operate purely based on MACC Act. That is where they think they are right but when in court, they usually lose. <br /><br />Yet they get angry with AG for rejecting their IP.<br /><br />If it is true MACC is not charging based on MACC Act but on penal code, it means they are going on minor technicalities in the same manner MACC and Gani Patail charged and sent Khir Toyo to the slammer. <br /><br />Ini kerja zalim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-88842821913140964632016-02-15T22:09:16.550+08:002016-02-15T22:09:16.550+08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-48909622395642103352016-02-15T17:27:00.191+08:002016-02-15T17:27:00.191+08:00SALAM
saya mengaku saya d kalangan orang yang sup...SALAM<br /><br />saya mengaku saya d kalangan orang yang support pegerakan tun...satu je tolong bagi saya faham...macam mana anda terima 2.6 bilion masuk dalam akaun peribadi pm sedangkan kita ada akta yang tidak bagi penjawat awam terima sumbangan hatta secara peribadi...kita jangan usik dulu kenapa ag pilihan ini tidak melakukan sesuatu kepada najib...itu hal dia..tapi anda...macam mana anda boleh terima semua ini...dan mempertahankan najib...adakah anda setuju 2.6 bilion masuk akaun pm...sumbangan peribadi atau rasuaha atau dana politik atau menentang keganasan tolak tepi dahlulu...<br /><br />satu lagi..bagaimana anda boleh terima 42 juta masuk dalam akaun dia...n dalam hujahan mahkamah najib mengaku perkara tersebut..apa stand saudara...berlainan pendapat perkara biasa...cuma tolong fahamkan orang benak macam saya ni yang tak boleh terima dua2 ni...tolong ye....<br /><br />gie7Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19741162.post-2334346458958723132016-02-15T13:07:06.494+08:002016-02-15T13:07:06.494+08:00All bollocks aside, with reference to Section 3 (S...All bollocks aside, with reference to Section 3 (S.3), Section 50 (S.50) and Section 16 (S.16) MACC acts, please answer the following question:<br /><br />Is Najib Razak guilty of receiving RM2.6 billion donation into his personal account?<br /><br />a. Guilty<br />b. Not guilty<br /><br />The question does not need any further mumbo-jumbo or bollocks, just straight answer of a or b.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com