your say'How do we know if Apco is not the liar? After all, they are paid handsomely to do anything that they are told to do.'

Letter shows Anwar a 'liar', says minister

Oeleong: This piece is a good one from Mr Ngap Sayot: Nazri Abdul Aziz, have you got your facts right?

1) You put forward the motion to refer Anwar Ibrahim to the committee in April 2010.

2) The Apco letter, which had been used to justify Anwar's suspension, was dated Aug 19, 2010.

3) You (not the rights and privileges committee) received Robert Shrum's letter only last week, meaning, the committee had not yet received this letter when they recommended to suspend Anwar.

4) Now you are telling the world you have proof that Anwar lied.

It looks very obvious to me that when you moved in Parliament to refer Anwar to the committee these two ‘documents', which you now refer to, were never in your hands at that time. So, four months before Apco's letter was received, you already decided Anwar was guilty.

In your court or Najib's court, Anwar could never win. You are shifting the goal post just to nail him. Has Najib asked you to lie for him, too?

Md Imraz Muhammed Ikhbal: If this moronic kind of logic by our ever so ‘learned' law minister were to be tragically adopted by our system of law, then practically every apprehended murder suspect, even the ones caught with their pants down, can simply deny ever committing the crime they are charged with and that should by a parallel equation make both the police and the prosecution outright liars every time.

A phenomenal dimension of life indeed this minister exist in, where practically any liar is at liberty to get any truth-teller labeled a liar by being the first to lie and calling their opponent the liar.

When even the basic rules of logic becomes subservient to the corrupt political will of the powers-that-be, then we know that a nation is on the motion of descend down the path of destruction.

Jefferson76: This is ridiculous. Nazri is only now talking about letters and proof, and only now daring Anwar to show his proof. Wasn't that what should have been going on before the suspension? I see, courts will now work this way - convict and sentence first, then show evidence and invite suspect to furnish his/her evidence.

Geronimo: Nazri, will a thief admit he is a thief? Please, don't insult our intelligence. If this was the case, why wasn't Apco's letter disclosed earlier during the heated public debate. Why only now? ‘One Israel' means ‘1Jewish' nation, so what do you think 1Malaysia means?

Malaysiasakit: Nazri, going by your logic here, no wonder your fellow parliamentarian labeled you as someone with "no class". If all the accessories to the fact and partners in crime were to vehemently deny any wrongdoing, will the cases be thrown out of court?

Your spin is incredibly lame. Please don't insult our intelligence anymore. Fifty-three years is long enough.

Wong Jiang Fung: Nazri still doesn't get it. With the letter - even if it's true - Anwar is still entitled to his own defence. What matters is that the due process of a fair hearing was not respected.

Ir Dr Mamakthiew Mamad: How do we know if Apco is not the liar? After all, they are paid handsomely to do anything that they are told to do. Surely, it has to protect its own reputation.


Nazri: Opposition forced speaker's hand

Taxpayer: Are there not more pressing matters facing the nation that require immediate attention? When did this public relations body Apco become so important that the representatives of the people can get suspended from Parliament?

Isn't it about time political parties accepted the verdict of the people in the 2008 elections and learned to behave in a manner that shows respect for democracy and the people's wishes? Isn't it about time the government showed some maturity instead of constantly looking for ways to bait the opposition and waste the rakyat's time and money?

Rolls-Royce: We have one court decision - on the allowance of MPs under suspension - and immediately Nazri claimed that we have separation of power and the executive branch respects the decision of the court. You think we are idiots.

For cases that are inconsequential or immaterial, it is easy for you to show to the world that this government respects the separation of power. For other cases where the outcomes are likely to have far reaching implications, you and I know the decisions will never be respected.

In fact the overwhelming power of the executive will see that the other branches of the government will automatically deliver the decisions expected by the executives. Everybody knows, except the hypocrites and the nincompoops.

I have a simpler definition of rule of law is all about. Rule of law is the respect for rule of engagement among the different institutions of government; it is not who has more power; it is not the use or the threat of use of raw power which we see today.

Anonymous: Where did Nazri get his law degree? First he said, "We have separation of powers. The judiciary has no jurisdiction in matters decided in Parliament because Parliament is supreme." Then in the next sentence, "That's why the four MPs were suspended with pay because the court had said in the case of Gobind Singh Deo that withholding his allowance was unconstitutional."

Didn't Nazri realise that he is contradicting himself here? Or he's just trying to humour us to death with his jokes?

Up Yours: Since Nazri has been given air time over national TV, now how about according DSAI (Anwar) the same courtesy to allow him to say his version. And then let the rakyat to judge who is right.

Md Imraz Ikhbal: Let's examine these two statements by Nazri: 1) "This is not a court. The committee's role is to investigate and then the sentence will be meted out by the House." 2) "If he wanted to defend himself then he should have done so in the debate."

If the role to investigate and determine guilt or innocence is by the committee and the role of the House is just to mete out an appropriate sentence, then how on earth is Anwar to defend himself from guilt and prove his innocence in the House?

Can a duck sent into a slaughter house hope to have its own life spared by quacking the right sounds so it may get slaughtered by a knife that will not end up cutting its throat?

Anwar was not only set up, guilt was decided upon him without even hearing his side of the story. And they expect him to play along, hope for justice and not get slaughtered in the House that his arch enemies have full control of?


Apco says affidavit confirms not involved in 1Israel

Yobama: Is Apco trying to say that PM Najib Razak was the one who concocted the 1Malaysia concept by himself? Then, what the heck was Apco paid for? To come up with what then?

Of course, you can write affidavits denying your involvement, but what guarantee do we have that you are telling the truth? None whatsoever.

Paul Warren: Malaysian affidavit? Anyone still recognises it? With the PI (private investigator) P Balasubramaniam affidavit and the 1,001 affidavits which the police don't take action on, who cares for another one from Apco?

Kgen: What do you expect Apco to do? Admit it?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paid subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.