There Are Crooked Judges.

Who says there is allegations without any basis?The C.J must be ignorant about what is happening at his doorstep.I was a victim of a corrupt judge.I made a formal complaint to the then Lord President Tun Dzaiddin and he didnt even reply to my letter.Naturally there was no action and I was just helpless as there was nowhere I could turn too.
My case was a straight forward one.A lorry rammed into my store and caused the building to collapse. I made a police report and proceeded to file a civil suit against the owner of the lorry. Since he was covered under insurance, the latter defended the suit.As a layman I was convinced it was an open shut case as through no fault of mine the lorry carelessly rammed into my building.My lawyer even pointed out to the judge that I could not be blamed for the accident since it was impossible for the building to cause the accident.Therefore it was not even probable that I had contributed in any way to the accident.But that was not the case because I lost the case. I would have left the matter as it was and blame it on my lawyer if not for an incident I witnessed with my own eyes.
On the morning of my case as I made my way to the court's canteen I saw the insurance lawyer chatting and laughing merrily with the judge at the canteen.I was so disgusted at the sight and felt at that moment my case would be prejudiced by the close rapport between the Insurance counsel and the judge.
I immediately wrote a letter to the then Lord President, Tun Dzaiddin and related the whole incident, disclosing my full name and the court involved.I did not even receive a courtesy reply and no action was taken of the matter.I feel so aggrieved at the whole matter but what recourse do I have?
If the judiciary is serious about cases of corruption then it should set up a committee to review such cases like mine and investigate why such straight forward case like mine could end up losing to the insurance company.
Because of this case I have completely lost faith in our judiciary.

What is the big deal selling sand to Singapore?

Frankly, can anyone tell me whats the big deal in
selling sand to Singapore?To me it is purely and
simply a commercial decision.If the price is right and
if we have sand whats wrong in selling sand to
Singapore.? Whats the big deal?Unless some idiot
equate selling sand as selling part of Malaysia.If not
if we have surplus sand why not sell as much sand as
Singapore wants.
Now coming to the use of air space by Singapore. Whats
the big deal here? Is there a compromise in our
sovereignty by allowing them to use our air
space?Rubbish. It is the norm for neighbours to allow
each other to use each other air space for security
and surveillance purpose.After all we are not at war.
So what is really wrong with the gesture of allowing
the use of the air space.Surely Singapore is not going
to ues our air space to subvert our country.
If both of the squabble is over a non issue why
pretend to blame Singapore for asserting its right for
a balance benefit?Afterall why should Singapore come
out with $700 million to build its side of the bridge
if it does not benefit them at all.
The trouble with our leaders is that they have always
treated Singapore as a small brother they think they
can bully.But looking at their economic progress and
their superlative adminisration of their small Island
state, I am begining to wonder who is the big brother
and who is the small brother.

Monday, May 01, 2006 9:28:40 PM