Step on it if you dare!

Unsuspecting tourists in Malaysia these past few weeks should not be blamed if they thought that Malaysians are culturally predisposed to the act of stomping on flags, pictures, dolls and the likes  as a general display or demonstration  of displeasure, hatred, objection or anything hateful against the person(s) who are represented by the object(s) being stomped on.

This, of course, is in addition to the acts of severing the head of a certain animal and carrying the same after Friday prayer on a public road while screaming some mantra of sorts.

When I read about the burning of Lim Guan Eng's posters - and the subsequent obligatory stomping on the same - by some neo-extreme-right-wingers-BTN Nazis, I initially thought that it was some kind of a street performance by the Actor's Studio of their new play, "The Nasi Beratur Blues". But I realised I was wrong when I did not see Jit Murad, Joe Kukathas or Patrick Teoh in the pictures.

Then the same act was repeated in Perak. Some neo-extreme-left-wingers-BTN haters started stomping on the pictures of the now famous "frogs", whose act of jumping from one pond to another, is now the stuffs of legend. And I thought, wow, it is contagious, this stomping business.

Richard Branson, who had recently unveiled the world's first commercial passenger space shuttle, might just soon unveil the world's first speciality shoes or boots with the tag line, "these boots are made for stomping".

Just as I was busy preparing my short speech to whack the Chief Justice and his Usain Bolt-inspired-but-half-baked potato of a plan to dispose of as many cases as possible in the shortest time possible during the Bar EGM this weekend, I was struck by yet another stomping orgy.

This time it was nearer to Kuala Lumpur. And it was such a flawless act of bigotry worthy of some kind of a national award, like the now famous (infamous?) "Penyapu Award", invented and refined to perfection by the neo-BaliJavanese-tempe-eating-mansionist. And so, it was the picture of some DAP fellows which were stomped on. The event was further enhanced by the shouts of "non-Malays are second class citizens".

And as if to lend some kind of a contemporary-ness to their act, they proclaimed that they accept the concept of 1Malaysia. Well, I drowned in the loco-ness of it all, I must confess.

Over the night I was thinking whether Malaysians have watched too much news. I mean those news showing various demonstrations of hatred, displeasure and what ever by the acts of burning an object and/or stomping on an object as popularised by the Pakistanis, Indonesians, Indians, Shiites, Palestinians, heck, the damn whole world, really.

If so, then I must say I am beginning to warm up to the  theory which postulates  that we are, not only what we eat but also what we watch. I mean just look at all of us nowadays. The clothes, shoes, hair cuts, cars, iPhone, iPod, Blackberry right down to the wife and girl friends (and husband and boy friends too, I must hasten to add, lest I would be accused of being a chauvinistic pig). The power of visual projection. Oh wow...

Then I thought, woohoo, hold on a minute. This act of stomping on objects representing something which, or someone whom, we dislike is nothing new to our culture.

When I was in primary school those days - and I really mean THOSE days - I had witnessed many duels between two kids.  The reason for such duels ranged from Ahmad calling Ah Boy "you are a fat pig" to Ah Boy loosening the cover of the botol kicap before Ahmad used the same at the canteen. Any of those "rascalities" would constitute enough reason for the aggrieved party to challenge the perpetrator of the injustice to a duel, OK Coral style, after school.

At the appointed time after school, the two protagonists would be waiting for each other at the appointed place, accompanied by the normal hanger-ons, which almost invariably, would include yours truly.

Ahmad and Ah Boy would be standing face to face, about 2 feet apart. No one moved. Ahmad was waiting for Ah Boy to make the first move and vice versa. The crowd, which of course would include me, would wait and wait. When are you two brave guys gonna go at each other la dey...I want to go home and have my lunch la. I would say to myself.

But hell, no one moved. Shit!

And so, finally, some smart spark would take two small stones. One would be placed at Ah Boy's feet and one at Ahmad's feet. The smart spark would then say, "Ah Boy, this is Ahmad's father", while pointing to the stone at his feet. Then he would say to Ahmad, "Mat, this is Ah Boy's father," while pointing to the stone at Ahmad's feet.

"Now, if you dare, step on it......."

Soon one of them would. And the duel began. Until Cikgu Kassim passed by and hauled everyone to the head master's room for a nice whacking.

It is in our culture, folks. This stomping act.

Imagine how fast and swift justice could be dispensed if we all follow our culture. I am now imagining Minister Nazri squaring it of with Dr Mahathir over the BTN issue at Dataran Merdeka. "Step la, step la, kalau berani...," Minister Nazri would say.

Then Ong Tee Kiat would do the same with Chua Soi Lek. Or Murugaiah against Kayveas. Anwar Ibrahim against Saiful. PI Bala against Datuk Nazim. Zul Noordin against Sivarasa ( apparently their hugging each other was not real, as there was no tongue, as pointed out by a dear friend of mine). Karpal Singh against, erm..everybody.

We could even spice things up by innovating a bit. Like bringing the picture of the missus. "Ha...if you dare, point your dick at her picture...point la...point la...kalau berani...."

I tell you, the Chief Justice would not have to worry about disposing cases anymore.

Muslamism May Spell The Death Of The West*

But it's not too late to fight back

First they told us that not all Muslims were evil. We didn't resist. 
Then they told us that not all Muslims were Islamo-fascists. We stayed silent.
Then they told us that not all Muslims were Islamists. We conceded the point.
Now there are no labels with which to stereotype and generalize all Muslims.
I have seen this state of affairs come to pass and I feel bad for my fellow man, who is deprived of access to a word that might allow him to reduce 1.2 billion people to one essential characteristic.
Given that I am already considered by Muslims to be part of the Crusader-Neo-Con-Zionist alliance to undermine, subvert, and sabotage Islam – not to mention seduce-all-Muslim-women-without-marrying-them-four-at-a-time – I thought I would go ahead and offer non-Muslims a little bit of information that will assist them in stereotyping my people.
Here it goes: my friends, most Muslims are Muslamists. It is a fact of which I am only now becoming aware.
Napoleon Bonaparte: Muslim

Due to my delay in identifying this malaise, I, humble House Muslim, avid fantasizer about white girls, rabid luster after Jewish approval, secret puppet of the American Enterprise Institute, perennial supporter of Paleo-cons, Neo-cons, Deceptacons, and A-Kon, ask for an apology from all my real and imagined masters: I should have told you about this sooner. If you would be so kind as to re-stamp my "moderate Muslim" card, I will promise to never let myself be so lax in my service.
Having said that, let me blare the alarm loud and forthright. Let us become vigilant. Let us pay attention. Only the fate of a Western civilization (that has been intact for three thousand years) is at stake!
I have found, looking back at my life, that Muslamists are everywhere. They are always slithering around with their slithery little tongues, slithering with slither. Muslims have been Muslamist at parties; Muslamist in thoughts; Muslamist in class-room arguments; and yes, Muslamist during sex.
The Muslamist phenomenon is a difficult one to define but perhaps it can be illustrated through my first open experience with it.
I was a wee child at a desi auntie's party – in Muslamist code you call all married

Goethe: Muslim

women "aunties" and all married men "uncles" – eating a helping of biryani and gosht. A college aged Muslim brother, a dapper pseudo-intellectual (defined as a Muslim who quotes leftist theory in order to support Islamic revolution but hates actual lefties such as feminists, queers and transgendered), was discussing European history with the uncles.

All the uncles were doctors – due to the MD next to their name they were considered by all the fawning riff-raff as the apex of Muslim success – and presumed to have an IQ six to seven hundred points higher than us mortals.
"I believe it was after Napoleon's imperialist and colonialist entry into Egypt in 1798," said the Pseudo-Intellectual, "that the meta-narrative of Western Hegemony truly brought itself to bear against the Placid Palaces of the Islamic Empires of Yesterday!"
With the characteristic nonchalance – as well as characteristic ability to miss the point – of the Muslim doctor-god, one of the uncles with a heavy Arab accent leaned forward and grasped the Pseudo-Intellectual by the collar.
"You aaaaare, ze, tokking abou ze Napoleon?"
The Pseudo-Intellectual replied: "Yes, Napoleon…"
"Bona Party?" yelled out another of the doctor-gods, this one a Bangladeshi Ob-GYNShakespeare: Muslim woman

(though I repeat myself). "You arrrre the thaaking about that the Napoleon?" The glee in his eyes far exceeded the glee that shone in them on his wedding night, when he lost his virginity at forty seven years of age after seven fellowships and three residencies.
"Yes uncle!" said the flustered Pseudo-Intellectual. "Napoleon's incursion into Dar-al-Islam! The natural hegemonic culmination of the Enlightenment dialectic! That Napoleon!"
The doctor-gods looked at one another. Silence filled the room. In the living room, the aunties stopped doing their dance of seven veils (which is what all Muslim women do when alone). I stopped chewing and shifted my eyes side to side.
All at once, the doctor-gods of the community leaned forward and like the Athenian chorus, sang out together:
"Did you know Napoleon was a Muslim?!"
That, my friends, is Muslamism in a nutshell. It is the belief, dogmatic and secure, unimpeachable and ideological, that all famous people are all covertly Muslim, that all inventions ever made are due to Muslim ingenuity and that all events in the world somehow connect back to Islam – though most of the time we just don't know how. Like all ideologies, there are moderates and extremists. Moderates tend to only believe in the possibility of a connection to Islam if there is some minuscule amount of evidence offered by the historical figure.
Extremists need no evidence. Their mere assertion – "He was Muslim!" followed by a pronounced nod of the head (up and down for Arabs, side to side for Pakistanis) – is sufficient.

According to Muslamist theory, the great German poet Goethe, despite being a devout Christian, was a Muslim because he appreciated Sufi poets such as Hafiz and Omar Khayyam.
Shakespeare, despite promoting all sorts of vices, was a Muslim – a Sufi woman at that (and no, not a Jewish woman).
Henry VIII, despite being the first Anglican, was Muslim because he had multiple wives.

Dante, despite his hatred of Muhammad, stole his story from Muslim sources.Nietzsche: Muslim atheist

Thomas Aquinas, a Christian saint, was secretly a Muslim because he relied on Averroes' books.
Columbus probably wasn't a Muslim, concede the Muslamists, but he relied on Muslim navigators and captains to find the new world. In Muslamist parlance reliance is a form of constructive belief.
Nietzsche, despite his atheism and hatred of organized religion, was more or less a Muslim too, because he said that Spain's Islamic baths were beautiful and that there was something commendable in the Wahhabi antipathy to alcohol. Muslamism towards Nietzsche is particularly strong, with Allama Muhammad Iqbal, India's foremost Muslim philosopher once declaring that had he been alive before Nietzsche suffered dementia he would have been able to convert Nietzsche to Islam.
Obviously, as already discussed, Napoleon was a Muslim – based on the mere fact that he owned a Quran and that later it was discovered that he had read it.
The Muslamist list of other individuals in history, who no sane person could conclude were Muslim, is long – and sometimes even extends to individuals who preceded Islam.
However, historical Muslamism pales in comparison to its contemporary version, of which Michael Jackson has been the pre-eminent ambassador. Living in Pakistan in the 1980's, I met Extremist Muslamists who were thoroughly convinced that Jackson was a Muslim. Their reasoning was simple:
"All popular American blacks are Muslim! Elijah Muhammad, and Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X! Michael Jackson is black and he is popular, therefore…!"
When recently, Jackson purchased a palace in Bahrain, these same Muslamists cameMichael Jackson: Muslim until he bleached his skin

rushing forward with a knowing smile on their face. "The King of Men!" they sang, referring to the Prophet Muhammad. "And now The King of Pop! Islam is truly a perfect religion!" When I pressed these uncles about The King, Elvis, I was summarily dismissed. "He would have been too but he just didn't get a chance to encounter Islam. Our evangelism was weak in the 50's." As of yet, there are no Muslamist theories about King James (but wait till he gets traded to the Brooklyn Nets).
Muslamists aren't completely irrational though. Sometimes they will confer Islam upon an unwitting person only to later strip the individual. Oscar winning actor Denzel Washington falls in this category. When he starred in Spike Lee's film "X", Denzel became a household name among Muslims. To this day, graying Muslim aunties overcome their latent fear of their children's black friends by saying, "well that Denzel is good black man so your friend might be safe to play with too." When as a youth my Sunday school teacher played Spike Lee's film for us in class, one of the Muslamist children next to me leaned in and told me "that the actor converted to Islam after playing a Muslim!"
However, Denzel's adoption by the Muslamists was short-lived. In the late 90's, Denzel starred in the film "The Siege" which most Muslims thought was akin to a cinematic hate-crime.
"He cannot be Muslim!" said Muslamists at the Islamic Center I attended. "No one involved in that film can be Muslim, even that Arab, Shalhoub, cannot be Muslim!" Another Muslamist chimed in. "Did you know that Allah punished the director of that film? He was driving and he hit a stop sign and the pole speared his brain?"
Most recently, Princess Diana and Britney Spears have been the favored Muslims among Muslamists given the former's relationship with Dodi al-Fayed and the latter's tryst with a British-Pakistani paparazzo.
Still, perhaps nothing better reveals the potency of Muslamism than the fact that it has infiltrated the sex life of average Muslim couples. Even Islamo-fascism couldn't pull that off.
I was once at a banquet sitting with some young Muslim males. We were discussingWill Smith: Muslim Scientologist

how one distinguishes a Muslim female who just appears engaged – many single Muslim girls tend to wear a ring on their ring finger – from one who is truly engaged. Conversation shifted to "post-marital action." Intoxicated on leechi flavored lassi, the brothers revealed their inner most yearnings. "Is it Islamically permissible to drink your wife's breast milk during the sexual act?" asked one, in preparation for his wife's pregnancy. "No!" came the reply. "If you drink her milk then under Islamic law you are equivalent to her child. Then you will not be able to have sex with your wife because she will be your mother."
"What is the Islamic view on role-playing?" asked another. Immediately the attention shifted to him. However, because role-playing somehow seemed to most of us more taboo than drinking your wife's breast-milk, no one followed up on his inquiry. Later when we were alone, the brother revealed his quandary. He and his wife liked to role-play as various celebrities.
"Don't worry," he assured. "Before we get it on, we role-play my wedding to the celebrity. You know I keep it Islamic! Anyway, all was good when my wife pretending to be other women and I was just myself."
"So what's the problem?" I asked.
"Well, now she wants me to pretend to be other men! In theory I'm cool with that, but you know Muslim women can't be married to non-Muslim men! How can I give this to my wife? Its not allowed under Islam!"
The answer, of course, lay with Muslamism.
"Why don't you role-play her marrying some celebrity who everyone thinks is a Muslim?"
"Who?"
"You could try Will Smith!" I said. "He played Muhammad Ali in the film Ali. He probably converted at some point. I heard rumors…I mean, his kid is freaking named Jabari…"
The beleaguered husband shook his head for a while. "No, me and Will are not the same body type, you know? My wife likes my body type."
"Tall, dark and skinny?"
"That's it!" he said with a yelp. "I know a celebrity that everyone thinks is a Muslim, which must mean he is a Muslim!"
"Who?" I asked.
"Barack Obama!" said the Muslamist. "You know that brother is a Muslim! I don't know why he fronts with this 'I am a Christian' business!"
It should be apparent to everyone that Muslamism threatens the future of WesternBarack Hussein Obama: Well, duh

civilization. If Muslamists can think that real people are Muslim, then what will happen once they start thinking cartoons are Muslim? Unless in an act of collective fiat we become Enlightenment Fundamentalists and declare war on Muslamism we will never be able to rid ourselves of this scourge.
After diagnosing the problem, it bears asking how Muslamism can be defeated. Obviously, the first step is for some illiberal Guardian of the West – with a menacing beard reminiscent of Leonidas to give him gravitas – must launch a website.
MuslamistWatch.org, should be set up immediately; on it, the latent traces of Muslamism in society must be identified and collected. Once it establishes a regular readership of five to six thousand people we will be ready for the next step.
Then the intellectual attack will commence. The most feasible counter-Muslamism strategy is to reveal it to emanate from non-Muslim sources. That would attack the Islamocentrism that lies at the heart of Muslamism.
Thankfully, there are many examples of religious self-obsession that precede Islam, the most potent of which is Hinduism. Indian uncles are notorious for claiming that Islam's Ka'ba is really a Hindu shrine, that Muhammad is a character from the Gita, that the West got sexual positions from the Kama Sutra, that Hegel stole his philosophy from the Vedas and that Hindus invented math because they were the first to come up with numbers.
If Muslims can be shown that Muslamism is just a re-creation of Hindu egoism, then over time Muslamism may lose its draw.
Then, happy, shining, liberated Muslim youth can usher in the Islamic Reformation cum Enlightenment cum Counter Reformation cum Sexual Revolution cum Chevy Revolution that will save the world.

Somewhat based on partly true events.

* By Ali Eteraz . This article originally appeared at Jewcy .

Anwar vs Mahathir - Malaysians are weird!

Baru-baru ini kes saman malu Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim terhadap Tun Dr Mahathir telah sampai ke Mahkamah Rayuan. DSAI telah merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membatalkan kes tersebut tanpa bicara.

Malangnya bagi DSAI, Mahkamah Rayuan telah menolak rayuan DSAI juga tanpa bicara. Ini adalah kerana peguam DSAI, Encik Karpal Singh (dan anak-anak beliau) telah memfailkan memorandum rayuan di dalam Bahasa Inggeris dan bukannya di dalam Bahasa Malaysia (Bahasa Melayu/Bahasa Kebangsaan).

Untuk saudara-saudari yang tidak berapa arif tentang aturcara Mahkamah Rayuan, saya ingin terangkan di sini bahawa di dalam setiap rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan, pihak yang merayu perlu memfailkan memorandum rayuan di dalam masa yang ditetapkan. Di dalam memorandum itu, pihak yang merayu akan menyatakan perkara-perkara yang hendak dibangkitkan di dalam rayuan tersebut.

Mahakamh Rayuan mendapati bahawa memorandum rayuan yang di dalam Bahasa Inggeris itu tidak menepati peruntukan-peruntukan undang-undang khususnya Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Akta Bahasa Kebangsaan dan sebagainya. Undang-undang berkenaan memerlukan semua dokumen Mahkamah difailkan di dalam Bahasa Melayu (Bahasa Malaysia/Bahasa Kebangsaan).

Oleh sebab itu, memorandum yang difailkan oleh Encik Karpal Singh adalah tidak sah. Rayuan DSAI pun ditolak tanpa bicara.

Saya ingin memetik sebahagian daripada apa yang dikatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam keputusan bertulisnya mengenai perkara tersebut di dalam kes DSAI melawan Tun DrM. Petikan di dalam bahasa asal keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan adalah seperti berikut:

"We have seen the memorandum of appeal and it is obvious that it is not drafted in Bahasa Malaysia. The supremacy of Bahasa Malaysia or the Malay Language in our courts cannot be denied. Pursuant to Article 152 of the Federal Constitution read together with section 8 of the National Language Acts 1963/1967 (Act 32) as well as section 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388), all proceedings (other than the giving of evidence by a witness) in the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, the High Court or any subordinate court shall be in the National Language. And according to Article 152(1) of the Federal Constitution, the National Language shall be the Malay Language....

And Rule 18(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 clearly states that it is the appellant who shall prepare a memorandum of appeal. Factually speaking, the absence of the memorandum of appeal in the National Language renders the record of appeal filed by the appellant incurably defective and, consequently, the appellant’s appeal herein should be dismissed with costs for the simple reason that there is no proper record of appeal before this court. It is as simple as that....

We categorically say that the mandatory provisions of Article 152 of the Federal Constitution read together with section 8 of the National Language Acts 1963/1967 (Act 32) and section 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388) must be adhered to. It requires the appellant to file the memorandum of appeal in the National Language. No other language will be entertained. And the failure of the appellant to do so amounts to a blatant breach which would compel us to conclude that no memorandum of appeal has been filed at all. The purported memorandum of appeal in the English language must accordingly be rejected outright without further ado. What is mandatory, must be strictly adhered to."

Diharapkan ini menjadi pengajaran kepada Encik Karpal Singh dan anak-anaknya. Juga kepada semua pengamal undang-undang. Semua prosiding di dalam Mahkamah Tinggi,  Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah di dalam Bahasa Kebangsaan (Bahasa Melayu/Bahasa Malaysia).

Sepertimana yang dikatakan oleh Timbalan Menteri Pelajaran baru-baru ini, kita akan menjadi "pelik" (di dalam bahasa Inggerisnya, "weird") jikalau kita berbahasa Inggeris di tempat kerja dan sebagainya. Itu adalah satu pencemaran budaya kita.

Ingat Encik Karpal, semua (dan saya maksudkan, SEMUA) dokumen Mahkamah perlu di dalam Bahasa Malaysia (Bahasa Melayu/Bahasa Kebangsaan). Kalau tidak, dokumen itu ataupun prosiding itu akan menjadi TIDAK SAH.

Faham?

Nota: Saya telah difahamkan bahawa peguamcara yang berkenaan bukannya Encik Karpal Singh. Sebenarnya peguamcara berkenaal ialah Tetuan S N Nair. Maaf di atas kesilapan saya.

Justice is an illusion

It's really tough being a Judge. Really, I think it's a thankless job. A Judge can never do any right.

I think it was in 1996 that a soon-to-be-really-famous High Court Judge politely asked me and my opponent whether we would mind to remain in his chambers for some small talk after we had finished our hearing before him. As I had no other case to do, I obliged the Judge. So did my opponent.

He asked both of us how long we had been practising. I told him I had practised for about 10 years. He smiled and said that I could be a Judge soon (as the Federal Constitution states that a person who has been a lawyer for 10 years or more could be a Judge).

I was wondering what was in the Judge's mind. He looked tired. Something was bothering him. He looked and behaved almost like he was resigned to the hopelessness of it all. He was looking at both me and my opponent intently. There was something that he wanted to say but couldn't.

Finally he asked, "what do you think of justice?" My opponent was senior to me and so he answered first. I can't really remember what my opponent said. After he had finished saying his piece, the Judge looked at me. "What do you think?" he asked me.

I looked at him and without hesitation I said, "Judge, I don't believe in justice!" He was petrified! I know he was going to ask why the hell I was practising law then. Before he did so, I continued, "Judge, human beings are incapable of dispensing justice. Only God can do so. Justice is subjective. The winning party will say they have got justice. The losing party will never say so."

The Judge was unimpressed. He looked deep in thought. He was clearly ruffled by what I had just said. Finally, he said, "could you then tell me what me and all my brother Judges have been doing all these while. And what you and your learned friends have been doing appearing before us?"

"Judge, I am a law practitioner, not a justice practitioner. You and your brother Judges have been dispensing the law all these while. You have been applying the law. In modern societies like ours, adherence with and applying the law brings the connotation that justice is being done. That's it. Justice is a connotation. It is not real. It is a corollary of the application of the law by the Court or Judge. The real justice will only be seen when we all die."

"The law is not always just. Take the land acquisition law for example. How just is a law which permits the Government to force a landowner to surrender his land to the Government? But if the law is applied and the Court imposes a suitable compensation to be paid to the landowner, the perception is that justice is done, but is it really done?" I postulated.

"My God", the Judge said. My opponent was cringing in his seat. "I have never thought about it that way,thank you for telling me," the Judge said, his eyes brightened up a bit.

We continued to chat for a bit after that. I was telling him that jurisprudentially, I belonged to the positivist school of jurisprudence. I believe that the law and morality should be separated. After about 20 minutes, we excused ourselves. As we were going out from his chambers, the Judge said, "have a good life both of you."

We thanked him. That was the last time I appeared before that particular Judge. Two or three months later, he rocked the Judiciary with his resignation. The reason for his resignation rocked the whole Malaysia and even the world. But life goes on in this country of ours. Nothing ever changed. People like this Judge just disappear from the map and from our memory.

I last met him in an event in Subang Jaya some months ago. He was still his jovial friendly self. And he looked much happier. May God bless him with a long and healthy life as well as peace of mind.

Fast forward to the present time.

When Justice Ariff Yusof (then he was a Judicial Commissioner) dismissed Gobind Singh Deo's suit against the speaker of the Parliament for suspending him (Gobind), many articles were written and posted on the net about it. Justice Ariff was questioned why he did not follow the Federal Court's decision in one of the Perak Menteri Besar constitutional circus. The Federal Court had in one of those cases held that the Court could review the decision of a Speaker.

Under the law, a decision of a higher court is binding on a lower court. Thus the decision of the Federal Court (which is the highest court in the land) would be binding on the High Court (where Justice Ariff sits).

In dismissing Gobind's suit against the Speaker of Parliament, Justice Ariff applied the clear wording of the law as stated in the Federal Constitution, which says:

"The validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in any court."

Justice Ariff opined that while the Federal Court recognised the power of the Court to question whether an act of the Legislative Assembly has any legal basis or otherwise, any act of the Assembly which is supported by any legal basis would be immuned from such scrutiny.

In all the articles written about his decision on the net, Justice Ariff was vilified by all and sundry, especially by the supporters of DAP or the Pakatan Rakyat. Some even called him stupid. Some others even questioned his impartiality.

Last week, in yet another high profile case, Justice Ariff held that MACC did not have the power to interrogate witnesses or potential witnesses after office hours. He then ruled that MACC's action in interrogating a potential witness at night was illegal and ordered compensation to be assessed and paid to the victim.

In doing so, Justice Ariff was of course interpreting the law as it is stated in the MACC Act. That Act says any person served with an order shall attend for examination and shall continue to do so "from day to day until the examination is completed" (section 30 (3) (a) of the MACC Act.

As the words "day to day" was not defined by the Act, Justice Ariff applied the literal meaning to the word and came to the conclusion that MACC does not have the right to force any person to give statement at night. Justice Ariff applied the law as he understands it. He applied the law as it is worded.

Many articles were also written about this decision, whether in the mainstream mass media or the net. The IGP made some statement which effectively ridiculed Justice Ariff's decision. The chief of MACC, while saying that MACC would abide by the ruling, was also sulking and whining like some small girls whose lollipop has been taken away.

This time the Pakatan Rakyat supporters hailed Justice Ariff as a hero of sorts. He was seen as a learned Judge who protects fundamental liberties. All the vilifications he received just after Gobind's case were quickly forgotten.

But, as I have said at the start of this article, there is no justice in this world. There is always one side which would say justice has not been served. My fellow blogger Rocky posted an article on his blog about Justice Ariff's decision. He somewhat said that Justice Ariff's decision is weird. Exactly, this is how he puts it:

"Well, I agree with blogger Syed Akbar Ali that in this case, the Court has acted really weird."

Apparently, the Scotland Yard, ICAC and Interpol could take statements at night. So, why not MACC? I must confess I do not know whether that is right. And I do not know what the law governing those bodies provide in terms of taking witness statements. I would also refrain from analysing whether MACC is comparable to all those bodies in terms of performance and ethics.

Whatever it is, Justice Ariff's decision will be appealed by the Attorney General. So, let's not go into the merit of it for the time being.

The point is the comments made under Rocky's article. This time, Justice Ariff is again vilified, especially by commentators who are obviously pro-government. One of the commentators noted that Justice Ariff is a former PAS legal advisor. He then concluded that "something is not right." Basically he was insinuating that Justice Ariff was being dishonest.

Another commentator asked whether Justice Ariff had any problem with the MACC. Perhaps the most unfair comment was this:

"Param Tak Suara said...

So how much did Karpal pay the judge?"

A Judge's good work will only last and be appreciated until his next decision which is unfavourable to the relevant party. That is obvious. Many of us have somewhat forgotten how Justice Ariff had conducted himself in accordance with the best tradition of the Judiciary. When the Nizar v Zambry case was fixed for hearing before Justice Ariff, he quickly made it known to all parties that he was a PAS legal advisor. He then invited arguments on whether he should disqualify himself. He later disqualified himself from hearing that case after listening to all parties interested.

That was how conscientious Justice Ariff was.

In Gobind's case he ruled against Gobind. What did that say about Justice Ariff's impartiality, considering that he was a PAS advisor? And now in the MACC case, he applied the law as he understands it. In doing that, he held against the MACC, and consequently the government.

To half of the world, he dispensed justice in all those cases. To the other half, he was a dishonest and partial Judge.

I think I have made my point.