BELIEVABLE BALA?

The 1st Statutory Declaration (SD) preamble is that of someone proud of their length of service and promotions, look at the length and detail of the preamble. The 2nd SD preamble is short, it's just a formality, not a personal expression. The style (wording) of the preambles and SDs gives the impression they were written by different persons.

I conclude Bala wrote the first SD but somebody else wrote the second SD.

Various blogs have focussed on the money Bala was paid, saying he is not credible, the SD was done merely for money.

As i recall, several days ago, it was revealed Bala's family was being held hostage.

I think the safety of his family motivated Bala, not money. I think Bala is credible. If Bala's tale was not credible, then why didn't Najib counter the tale with evidence?

WRITTEN BY PAKAC LUTEB

You can read more at THIS LINK.

NOT AN OPTION

A lot has been written lately by many parties regarding judicial reform. The writers focus on independence of the judiciary and the integrity of judges. Those are absolutely essential components of a judiciary in a democratic society.

However, they are far from sufficient.

If all the judiciary has is independence and judges who have high integrity, what will result is decisions that are merely the administration of law: if someone commits offence X they receive punishment Y. Justice will be absent.

Laws are made by the Legislature. Members of Parliament, however noble their intent, may fail to be aware of some consequences of laws they create.

They may lack the imagination to see the consequences or the situation causing a particular consequence may not be foreseeable. For example, the technology involved in the unjust situation may not yet exist when the law was created.

Sometimes unforeseen consequences can result in great injustice if laws are blindly administered.

There is a remedy that injects justice into the administration of laws. It is called a Jury.

Juries inject common sense and flexibility into the administration of law. They do that with their collective wisdom and intelligence.

Abraham Lincoln reportedly said "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

That is very true in the case of juries. Jurors are likely to understand the facts of a case, no matter how convoluted the arguments of the lawyers.

In addition to juries injecting justice into a judicial system, they also give credibility to the judicial system and the decisions reached.

In simple terms, which is less likely to be bribed, coerced or intimidated into arriving at a particular decison, 1 or 2 judges, or a jury of 10 (or 12) members of the rakyat?

To have a judiciary in Malaysia that is fit for a democratic society, trial by jury is NOT an option, it is a necessity.

WRITTEN BY PAKAC LUTEB