my nazri business

today at destiny church, ps peter anderson (who according to my beloved pccf cg leader is VERY YOUNG) bombarded us with statistics, saying that being a christian makes that our business.

I can't exactly remember everything.

But apparently 17 women are raped everyday in the uk.
1 in 3 women had an abortion
i can't remember exact numbers, but crime rates, though described as '5x lower than the national average of uk' in edinburgh, is high in the whole of uk...

And it's the church business to change it. God did not put us in where we are by accident. We are placed where we are for a purpose. God did not just want us to have a good life in heaven, but here too. And it;s our business to help those who have problems here.


Ps Jonathan David and Ps John Chin mentioned this many times back home in malaysia. But it is in fact a life changing fact. We just need to take a stand.

For being a Christian doesn't mean just to sit back, relax and of course, love...but also to help each other.
and if we can set the wrong things right in our land, it is our duty towards the community we are placed in and to our God. If we just let injustice happen in our land by pretending to be blind, what will then be the point of God-given wisdom and foresight?

I'm in not anyway suggesting violence to change stuff. That, i strongly oppose. And that is also strongly against biblical principles.

But in a wise, mature way. In a righteous way.

We are not to turn a blind eye to the wrongs against us. We should not in anyway judge the doer, but we should not compromise with the action and the effects of the action on others. We should not hate the sinner, for we are sinners too. But what about the sin itself? The bible did not in anyway say 'love the sinner, love sin'.

In fact, in Romans 12:9, it is written 'Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.'



So let me show u somethings that do become my business.

The doings of my country's leaders are my business.

NST did an interview with Datuk Seri Muhammad Nazri Abdul Aziz (the same guy in the m'sian parliament video posted on this blog---the one shouting "racists 28 times") recently, concerning the really heated controversy of transparency of the country's judiciary system.

So let me interprete some of the excerpt for you.


Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, who is the de-facto law minister, talks to ANIZA DAMIS about the controversial video clip, the judiciary, the Bar Council and bloggers

Q: Is there a crisis in the judiciary? Why is there a perception of there being one?

A: There isn’t a crisis. It’s a false allegation.

The perception has been created by some people. When I go back to my constituency, nobody talks about it.

When people do not go to the courts to settle their disputes, that’s when there’s a crisis. But I don’t see that.
The few people who are unhappy, make a lot of noise. It is reported, people read, and think there is a crisis.

Crisis means it involves the whole country but nobody talks about it. I even asked my fellow members of parliament (MP) but nobody talks about it. So, what crisis are we talking about?

The crisis is in the minds of those who created it.

Nobody in his constituency heard of it? why? he's representing padang rengas-a small village in perak. I doubt people there have access to media channeling alternative political views or they are just too busy working. After all, as i mentioned in my previous post, political awareness is pretty low in non-urban areas. The lack of information is to be blamed. Schools do not educate students about politics because it is not part of the system to do so! There is no other alternative sources for them. Why don't you just stick to putrajaya area or KL, places booming with information and people with access to these forms of media?

Q: Some 1,000-2,000 lawyers were involved in the Bar Council walk. Are you saying that that many lawyers have been misled?

A: Only 1,000 went to the ground. There are 13,000 registered members of the Bar.

Q: You don’t think 1,000 is enough?

A: 1,000 of 13,000 — is that a majority? What’s the big deal?

In a democracy, the minority cannot control the majority. The minority does not speak for the majority.

Q: Aren’t the views of the minority also important?

A: But (they are) not (the) majority. If there are any decisions to be made, it has got to be the majority.

Q: So, if you wanted to be convinced (that there is a crisis), you would need 7,000 lawyers to walk?

A: Even then, it’s still not important to us, because the lawyers are not the only people who use the courts. The ordinary people use the court in their disputes.

It must be a majority of the population who feel that there is a crisis. Otherwise, there is nothing.

Q: Do you really want that many people marching in the streets?

A: No. You don’t have to have millions of people marching in the streets. Let the people decide, whether there is a crisis or not, through the legal means of sharing your dissent or anger — through the ballot box.

A: Then you can say, “Let’s have elections once every three years then.” We have to work within the system that we have.


13000 registered but how many of them actually stay in kl? How many others are too busy with cases? How many others are out of the country?

1000 is a strong number. We spent millions on 1 astronaut. We spent another 50m on 26000 haj pilgrims this year. 26000 out of 25 mil citizens. They are important. But if everyone actually thought that minority ain't important, i better run from malaysia. I'm a minority. And i'm not a big deal.

Q: So, what you are suggesting is, if people are unhappy with the judiciary, they should vote BN out?

A: Ya.

Q: But what if people want a BN government, but they also want you to ensure a clean judiciary?

A: So then go talk to the judges — why talk to us? I’m the Executive. How can they ask me to sack the chief justice (CJ)?

Q: You’re the de-facto Law Minister. And they are not asking for a sacking — they are asking for a more transparent appointment system.

A: We’re talking about the independence of the judiciary. I don’t speak for the judges. You want to clean up the judiciary, go and speak to the judge.

Then, once the judges decide, we will accommodate the procedures. Lawyers can criticise the judges or judiciary if they want to. But if I, as an MP, criticise, then I am interfering.

So, the best thing the lawyers can do is speak to the judges — tell them how important it is to clean up the judiciary.

I’m sure the judges are also concerned about their image. And if they so decide, and say, “Look, it is time that we change", then we will accommodate them — amend the Constitution, or whatever. It has to come through the judiciary — not from me. When they (the lawyers) went to the prime minister they are asking him to interfere. Tak boleh (Cannot).

Twenty years ago, they were very angry with us. The prime minister used the procedure to sack the CJ. Now you are asking us to use the procedure to do the same thing?

Why is it that 20 years ago we cannot do that, but now we can? Is this at the whims and fancy of the Bar Council members?

I feel their problem is with the individual; not with the system.

There is a Malay saying: Marah nyamuk jangan bakar kelambu. You are upset with one individual, you want to throw away the entire system.

Later, if you have another system, and you don’t get along with the CJ, do you want to change the system again?

Did he say to ensure a clean judiciary, go talk to the judges? In a football match, no matter how trustworthy the squad is, a referee is there for a purpose. In a working organization, supervisors are there for a reason. And i have to say that as the de-facto law minister, he is there for a purpose. You can't expect footballers to reprimand their teammates for fouls. You can't expect colleagues to tell other colleagues they are inefficient. You need an authority to say something. And in this case, my dear minister, you are the 'referee' or 'supervisor' appointed by the rakyat to speak up. The rakyat is holding the authority, and they have passed some to you to act, not to refer their complains to somebody else. If you feel their problem is with the individual, then it should be your responsibility to find out who that individual is and make sure the problem is dealt with. Not just sitting there blaming every thing that can possibly happen.

Q: But if we had a transparent system, perhaps all judicial appointees would be acceptable to the people.

A: But if you have a royal commission for the appointment and promotion of judges, you might not agree with the decision, too, because members of the royal commission are also human beings.

Tell me, who appoints the commission? The system is the same. The appointment of the commission will be made by the king, on the advice of the prime minister.

The commission would be there, but the Bar Council will not be happy, and then you’ll have another system (change).

Q: Can the commission be appointed by consensus or stakeholders?

A: Why stakeholders? Stakeholders are people too. Do you want to have an election?

You know what will happen — people will campaign to become members of the commission and then they’ll be compromised, because they want to be chosen by the people.

And then the judges will have to kow tim (settle) with them again — it’s the same thing.

Are we to change just because 1,000 lawyers are unhappy? The Constitution must be amended by two-thirds of MPs; and the two-thirds represent the majority of the people.

If we MPs are not convinced, how can we amend the Constitution? We can’t listen to the views of just 1,000 lawyers. Since when was the view of 1,000 lawyers more important than that of the 11 million who voted for us?
Lawyers are not the only stakeholders. It is also the people in the streets — they are the ones who go to court.

Q: You have said the government was happy with the current system of appointments. Why?

A: We found that the system works for us. We inherited this system (from the British), and for 50 years it has served us well. Something which has not brought us any problem, why should we change?

If we need to change this system, we would need a clear indication from the judiciary.

Even then, before you change you have to go and see the Malay rulers. Out of courtesy, you have to tell them.

Any slight change, we have to see the Malay rulers first. Once they agree, then you’ve got to get the agreement of the judges also, because this involves them.

I am only interested in no interference by the Executive. When I became minister in charge of the judiciary, I wanted to make sure that what happened 20 years ago should not happen now. So, please do not ask us to interfere with the judiciary.

The prime minister is a good man, he respects that, so he doesn’t interfere. That’s why you can see judges now making decisions which may sometimes be negative towards the government. That’s okay.

They are free to make their decisions without interference. The same goes for how judges should be appointed. But if the call for change comes from the judges, it’s okay.

He basically stated out that change is troublesome. Tell me what kinda change is not? But you are placed there for a reason. I agree that no change should take place if everything is working fine. Or else, the judiciary system will evolve into something like the education system. Full of changes, not much results. (just check the amount of unemployed graduates!) But if something better is possible, why not change? I personally do not think that any rakyat will find anything displeasurable in a more transparent judiciary system. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Q: Is the tenure of the chief justice going to be extended?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know anything.

If you were Donald Trump's employee and you said that, you would almost be 100% sure that you would be fired! At least have an attitude to say " I don't know, but I'll find out for you"...or something like that. This is not acceptable for the de-facto law minister to not know. How do you use your power effectively without knowledge about the system whatsoever. Should Malaysia as a country adopt lesser standards than somebody's company?

Q: If you just take into account what is printed in the media and what comes out in the blogs, it would appear that there is a crisis in the judiciary.

A: To me, if there were no newspapers, if there were no blogs, then it’s just mere chit-chat in the coffeeshop. That’s all.

Q: Coffeeshop chit-chat is not important?

No. The people are important. This is a government elected by the people, for the people. So, people means the majority.

If we didn’t have blogs, if we didn’t have newspapers, who in this world would know about it? But because of technological developments, you are able to chit-chat (about it). It’s just chit-chat.

Q: But the fear that is felt is genuine.

A: So what do you want me to do? Ban all these bloggers? Shut down all the newspapers? I don’t think so.

We must live with the fact that this is now a modern world. Technology has enabled us to get to know each other so news gets moved faster.

Q: So, you don’t think it’s important to try to address the worries of these people?

A: No. It’s not important. Why do you put so much importance on bloggers? You know what rubbish has been written in the blogs?

Q: Do you read blogs?

A: I don’t. I don’t waste my time. The few pieces that people print for me are just rubbish.

I’d rather spend my time to do things that are constructive; that go down directly to the people who are really in need of the help of the government.

Our bloggers are really not up to standard. When they put up something, it’s not something that they want to discuss in a very intellectual way.

It’s more because of their anger - the language they use. Why should I read all this rubbish?

When the standard of our bloggers is upgraded, then probably I will look at what is written.

But anyway, they are a minority. My concern is for the majority.

if u believe the above, quit reading this blog. It is rubbish. Or is it?
Coffeeshop chit chat is not important. The people behind it are important. Blogs are not important. But the people behind them are. His way of saying that blogs are just a result of anger has to be incorrect. He probably read some nonsensical blog and generalised bloggers. What's the difference between a newspaper article and a blog if both are written intellectually giving full proof of what they say? That would be better than those coffeeshop chit chats MPs are paid to hold so often in a place called the leaking parliament of malaysia. I do not stop watching parliamentary videos just because of what i've to say bad quality and anger in speech because i love this country and i want to know what my representatives are doing. Shouldn't those given power by us refer back to us to know what we want them to represent?


Q: Indians in Malaysia are a minority. Does that mean that they don’t count?

A: No, not in that minority sense. I am talking about bloggers.

When you talk about minority in the sense of perkauman, they are very important, because they are our rakyat, a rakyat that needs to be helped.

Bloggers don’t need to be helped. They are merely throwing rubbish into the blog.

I have no concern for and care about bloggers.

The problems of Indians as a minority is different from the problems of the bloggers. You must appreciate that. I don’t care about the bloggers, but I do care about the minority Indians.

In my constituency, I take care of them. You can go to my constituency and see what I have done for the Indian minority. I was the one to open the training in Mara for the Indian youths.

These are my concerns.

Bloggers, non-bloggers, bumi, non-bumi are all humans and the rakyat who gave power to MPs.


Q: What did you mean when you said that, by walking, the lawyers were behaving like the opposition?

A: Lawyers have got stature in the eyes of the public. And they are apolitical.

Also, I have told them that we will work together; never again should the confrontation of 20 years ago be repeated.

It doesn’t look good when the government is at odds with either the judiciary or the Bar Council.

So, I opened up the doors, I’ve helped them in many ways, to hasten the Legal Profession Act (Amendment) for instance. I did not close my door to them.

So, I was surprised when they suddenly decided to walk and demonstrate.

I feel sad, because these are lawyers — my profession also — and I would rather see them being accorded the respect that should be given to them.

If the memorandum is from the Bar Council, they would have been given an appointment to see the PM.

I would have preferred that the memorandum was brought to the PM’s office.

They would sit down with the PM, discuss for one or two hours, and then hand the memorandum over.

But by walking, it is like you are already partisan, you have already made up your mind to oppose the government; that you cannot work with the government, that’s bad.


Hello? the point of the walk was according to The Star, "On Sept 26, 2007, to the amazement of their fellow citizens, 2,000 lawyers led by Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan went on a “Walk of Justice” to the Prime Minister's Office in Putrajaya. Their purpose: To hand over two memoranda asking for a royal commission to investigate the now notorious video clip showing a prominent lawyer purportedly brokering the appointment of judges and the establishment of a permanent judicial commission. "
So by walking, they just wanted to say how serious they are as a whole. They are in no way disregarding or opposing the government by doing that. If they really were, they would have easily burn flags near their offices. But the act of walking towards the PMO to submit a memorandum suggest that the PMO and government is still acknowledge as the authority and the power to change things into what is hopefully a better Malaysia. I'm sure they love Malaysia as much as any of us. They just hate corruption a bit more.

And if they didn't walk, we all probably won't know about all these things going on behind closed doors. They granted our right as rakyat--- the right to know.


Q: Maybe walking just says that they are partisan towards justice?

A: I wasn’t complaining about their memorandum. It was the way they did it — demonstrating on the street. The opposition was there.

When you go on the street, how are you going to stop the opposition from coming in?

In a meeting with the PM, those who are the opposition — who are not genuine lawyers — cannot go in.

You should be apolitical. You are an NGO, you are not an opposition party. You have stature, you’ve got a position in public, people look at you with respect.

But the moment you take to the street, who is going to respect you? They’ll laugh at you. There are people who are laughing at you — but they don’t write in the papers Bodoh punya kerja! (fool’s errand).

Q: Is there anything wrong in walking for your beliefs?

A: No. But that is the way of the opposition. If you are a political party, we can understand. But if you are a respectable society, that’s not an honourable way to do it — not when the government accords you respect.

How can you bring yourself so low? The moment you do that, we don’t respect you.

If I say to you, “M****r*****r you!", can you say, “Eh, let us sit down, we’ll talk about it.” No!

You are lawyers, man! People respect you. So, do it in an honourable way.

When the president of the Bar Council wants an appointment with the PM, she or he gets it. That’s how it is. That’s what I wanted, and I would have accommodated that.

But they didn’t contact me. I was waiting. Ambiga knows my doors are open.

They did walk peacefully. Walks are in no way always rebellious. India was changed by peaceful demonstrations. And we look up to Mahatma Gandhi. Walking peacefully to show how serious you are about a noble matter should not be compared be swearing!

Q: The Bar Council claims that they have never been able to get an appointment with the CJ.

A: He’s retiring anyway.

I told them, “Fairuz is also a human being. Kalau you criticise, criticise, criticise dia — dia mana mau layan you.” (If you keep criticising him, he won’t entertain you).

I can get a lot of things out of you if I talk to you nicely, but if I start shouting at you, do you think you will accommodate me? No way!

Q: But you are more than an ordinary person. You are also the de facto law minister.

A: But you cannot divorce me from the fact that I am also a human being.

Q: That’s very irresponsible.

A: Human beings, there are ways, how you do it. You want something, you talk. You don’t shout, and then expect to get something, no way.

Q: Why didn’t the government empower the panel to compel witnesses?

A: Because we have to first determine the authenticity of the video clip, to make it into a formal and genuine complaint.

Any employee late for work using the excuse that i'm a "human being" and "there are ways, how you do it" would know that employers treat this as an invalid excuse. Mr Minister, being a lawyer, i hope that you use better arguments than coffeeshop chit chats to represent the rakyat in the parliament.

I think i've said enough. We need a change!