Disturbing questions

The simple act of deporting someone transiting in Malaysia has posed many questions.

1. There is purportedly a court order stopping that particular person from being deported (source: theMalaysianinisder). If that is so , what needs to be determined would be :

2.  Was the court order obtained before the deportation or after the deportation? If it is obtained before the deportation, was there any delay in serving the court order on the authority to prevent such a deportation

3. If there was a delay in serving the court order, was it done on purpose or was it due to the common Malaysian attitude of ‘tidak apa”?

4. If there was no delay in serving the court order, and the court order was obtained before the deportation, then why was the deportation still carried out?

5. If there was the court order, why did the Home Minister deny initially that there was such an order?

6. Was he telling the truth? If he was, why wasn’t he informed of the court order?

7. If he was not informed, was there is a serious breakdown in the chain of command?

8.  If indeed there was a court order and it was obtained before the deportation and the deportation was still carried out, is there still rule of law in this country?

Advertisements

6 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. C++
    Feb 15, 2012 @ 10:46:33

    Dear Dr,

    I think somehow and somewhat… there’re a missing link is somewhere… need to get some clarification from the court….

    Like

  2. CYC
    Feb 15, 2012 @ 13:22:56

    There will be no clarification from the court. Instead some contradict comments that will confuse us more. That is the modus operandi of our institution way of cari makan and hold on office.

    Like

  3. Li Li Fa
    Feb 15, 2012 @ 21:23:21

    In the Chinese character of ‘Official’, there are ‘two mouths’; implying that there are two ways communication can be effected.

    To be simply put, one can be an official way, clear and direct, and the other is the circumlocution way of saying something using more words than are necessary instead of being clear and direct.

    Over the years officials have perfected their oratorial skils in officialdom and the receiving public is left in the lurch and in circumstances beyond their control; some bordering on citings of human rights infringement.

    Are we that official conscious that we attract unofficial comments from abroad?

    Like

  4. petestop
    Feb 16, 2012 @ 11:32:41

    Put it simply, Malaysia police and govt can’t even protect the rights of a ex-DPM (aka Anwar), do you think they care about a foreigner or the citizens ?

    Like

  5. CYC
    Feb 18, 2012 @ 20:47:31

    I have more disturbing question after half way through the “grand” debate.

    Why we have such low class supporter who virtually screamed emotionally when asking stupid question.

    This is the worst debate i ever watched. You whack me and I whack you without raising any constructive suggestion. Generally the debater performed better than the supporters, no class at all. And you expect what kind of leaders could we have if these 9the supporters)are the politically active participants.

    Like

  6. mmc
    Feb 19, 2012 @ 10:40:34

    rule of law?

    tell it to the Perakians.

    tell it to the 3 simple businessmen who has yet to receive the court award from Pahang.

    list is longer than dirty laundry list.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: