Video clip probe: Source of video recording to be given protection

One frustration onto another

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:24:12 +0100

It is indeed frustrating to live in a country where the citizens are the voters and yet their cries and struggles are side-lined because of the usurpation of the law by the powers that be. Something must be wrong somewhere. The Government wants to be transparent; and yet, now, the law minister is talking about camouflaging one's identity. Something must be really wrong somewhere! Tan Peek Guat - Tan Peek Guat

What now!

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:10:24 +0100

Hey, The may say that the person in the video clip is someone who has undergone plastic surgery now! ;D Kelvin Ng Sin Huat - Kelvin Ng Sin Huat

Plastic Surgery, ok?

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:07:09 +0100

It was reported by AFP today that, "Malaysia has offered plastic surgery and a new identity to try to draw out the anonymous whistleblower behind a video clip purportedly showing judicial corruption". What an international disgrace! My fear is that the whistleblower may end up having all his organs harvested instead of a plastic surgery while lying on the operating table. Ha..ha.. Raymond Yap Soon Hock - Raymond Yap Soon Hock

Hardly assuring...

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:18:39 +0100

Maybe the learned Minister should consider getting a new face himself. The present one is "too tebal". Speak like a minister in charge of law for once. The issue of getting a new face would be hardly assuring to the informant would it now. Visvanathan Murugiah - Visvanathan Murugiah

Nazri

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:42:13 +0100

The Witness Protection Act? Or still just a Bill? How does Nazri know how it will be implemented? Will he give a binding undertaking to the whistleblower, binding him to liability for unspecified damages? Also, dear Nazri, a new location and plastic surgery is not what we Malaysians do everyday OK? It's not that simple. Just because should the whistleblower decline does not mean that V K Lingam did not broker deals with Ahmad Fairuz. That's basic law. As the AG will tell you, many accused are arrested even before investigations are fully complete. Heck, sometimes investigations are still NOT complete even though a trial date has been fixed! Further, what if the informant reveals himself, and then the government decides that based on Lingam's statement to the ACA (the contents of which has not been revealed, not even in summary) there is no case? What guarantee can Nazri give that as at the moment, it has not already been decided that there is NO case (remember Negri Sembilan's ex-MB?)? Alex Tan Ken Seng - Alex Tan Ken Seng

What next?

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:04:34 +0100

First he was the CJ's minister. Now he's relying on a Bill as if it were an AOP. What next? Darric Ong - Darric Ong

Plastic surgery???

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:33:46 +0100

There you go, loud and clear thanks once again to the de facto Minister of Law. The whole purpose of the panel is for the Government (not the panel) to know who are the sources. All these talks about ascertaining the authenticity in order for the panel to carry out its task, and thereafter for the Government to act upon the findings of the panel are nothing but a complete farce! And what nonsense is this about plastic surgery when the Bill hasn't even been passed? And if ever anyone in this country were to undergo such mind-boggling process of plastic surgery and change of identity in order to ensure one's safety, where's the protection which is meant to be afforded by the Witness Protection Bill then? And imagine the inconveniences caused to one's social and private lives. Buddy Low Chia Chii - Buddy Low Chia Chii

New Identity

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:13:19 +0100

My humble view is that the Minister would benefit from a new identity (and portfolio). Clement G Lopez - Clement G Lopez

Assurance from minister is still wanting

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:12:10 +0100

To my simple mind, the source of the video clip (whistle blower) has no relevance to the authenticity of the video clip. It may be relevant in a court of law in respect of the rules against hearsay evidence. But as far as investigation into the authenticity of the video clip is concerned, I am of the view the same can be verified through technical expertise and other means which has been suggested by some fellow lawyers here. When and if the Witness Protection Bill is passed, will it have a retrospective effect to cover the whistle blower in this case? Whilst the identity of the whistle bower may be protected under the Prevention of Corruption Act, does that also mean that the whistle blower is immune and protected from prosecution? Assuming it is in the affirmative, it would only cover the whistle blower if he gives a statement to the ACA and not when he gives a statement to the three member panel isn't? Hence the need for a royal commission of inquiry! I was once asked by someone to trust him to sort out some problem which arises from his own wrong doing. I told him that he can only issue such statement or "assurance" if and only if he has the credibility in the first place. To the mind of the whistle blower, does the government has the reputation and moral creditability for him/her to rely on the assurance by the Honorable Minister. To some, it is sufficient, to others it may still be found wanting. Kelvin Ng Sin Huat - Kelvin Ng Sin Huat