Nancy is forgetful and confused

– Ravinder Singh
The Malaysian Insider
21 October 2014

In one breath Nancy said that her parliamentary reply “would have been similar, if the threat was to burn the Quran”.

In the very next breath she said “But I had to answer based on what was done, what was carried out. Based on their analysis, there wasn’t enough evidence (to charge), that is their answer,”

So, can Nancy clarify: if the answer she gave was “their answer”, how could she assure the public that “if the threat was to burn the Quran”, “their answer” would be the same, for she would only be reading “their answer” again. No?

She is all confused. While saying that the answer she gave was “their reply”, she is at the same time asserting that it was her reply. For only if it were her own reply, could she give an assurance that she would give the same reply if the threat was to burn the Quran.

If somebody takes her courageous words to heart and threatens to burn the Quran, can she guarantee that her reply would be the same? How would that be since the reply would be prepared by the A-G Chambers, or would she do a ‘copy and paste’ job and would the A-G let her do so? He might charge her for plagiarism.

The A-G is being made out to be a human that is infallible. Let us just compare this case with the “celaka” case. ‘Celaka’ is not a vulgar word. The Kamus Dewan gives 4 meanings: 1) malang (bkn nasib seseorang), sial, tidak baik. 2) sesuatu yang menyebabkan penderitaan (kesusahan dll), kemalangan, kesialan. 3) makian, keparat, jahanam, bedebah. 4) seruan utk menyatakan kemarahan (kekecewaan dll).

The ‘celaka’ outburst was not pre-planned. It was something spontaneous. It was not a vulgarity and was directed at a few specific persons.

The call to burn bibles was obviously pre-planned. There were no such bibles. So why was it made without such an incident having taken place? It was directed to all and sundry.

Is the A-G not answerable to anyone in the country, not even to the PM or the Cabinet? Does any provision of law or the Constitution say that?

Said Nancy: “Actually, we the cabinet don’t make decisions for the A-G (attorney-general), okay? The A-G acts in accordance to the law, so if we give orders to the A-G, people would ask why are we meddling in A-G’s duties,” she said when asked to comment on the reports.

Is asking the A-G to be accountable for the way his chambers is charging or not charging people which the public sees as biased or on-e sided “meddling in the A-G’s duties”? Can’t Nancy, the PM or even the cabinet ask the A-G to give detailed reasons for the way he is charging or not charging people so that an assessment of the fairness of his actions can be made? Is it wrong for Nancy, the PM or the Cabinet to assess the A-G’s work?

What is the purpose of having ministers if they have no authority to ask people in their ministries to be accountable for their actions and inactions, if they have no authority to assess the performance of these people?

So Nancy’s bold assurance that her parliamentary reply “would have been similar, if the threat was to burn the Quran” holds no water at all. She forgot so quickly that the reply she gave was not her reply. – October 21, 2014.