I was about to continue part 2 of my musings about poverty and Sri Lanka when someone emailed me to ask whether I am gloating over the Court of Appeal decision regarding Perak. No, I am not..I dont gloat, I respect legal decisions irrespective of whether they amenable to my political and moral appetites. Equanimity and magnamity are the rules of engagement which any rational being should uphold for it is the cornerstone of any society which claims to be civil. What will happen, if we succumb to the prattle of emotion and question every decision made by a court of law just because it doesnt suit our taste-buds? How can the rule of law prevail when we act like she bitches scorned by the the resident stud of doggy world? What respect of law are we talking about when we shout and scream like brainless primates just because a decision doesnt go the way our desires scripted it on our minds' landscape.? What rubbish are we talking about when we mouth platitudes like keluhuran perlembagaan when our hearts and minds are not luhur to accept decisions based on that very perlembagaan!
No i am not gloating, in the same way I was not downcast when the High Court delivered an apposite verdict 2 weeks ago. No, I am not gloating even when the decision very much vindicates the jottings I made regarding the Perak imbroglio. As I said only imbeciles, spurned she-bitches, dissolutes would rant and rave about the "unfairness of it all" when there was nothing unfair nor perfidious on how the whole procedure of dissolving and constituting a new government was conducted in the first place. 4 reasons why:
1. The Perak Constitution is clear regarding what happens when a MB loses confidence. The law is silent on how the determination of that loss should be made. The lower court verdict based itself solely on a 42 year old precedent so holed with discrepancies that it will put my missus' teeny weey see through negligee to mortal shame. A much later decision regarding an almost contemporaneous situation received short shrift much less critical analysis . The end result was a verdict that was so embarrassed of itself that it was begging to be struck down and struck down it was by three unanimous heads rather than one know-it-all.
2. On reflection, if one reads the relevant sections from 16(1) to 16(7), one is struck by how much procedural the whole stuff is as much as it is legal! From how the ruler appoints the MB, to how the exco is constituted to how the MB and the exco die a natural death when he loses confidence. So intertwined are the two by their legal umblical cord that it is a touching sight to read and imagine.The MB and the exco? Well, any right thinking individual equipped with the basic rudiments of English and a thinking top would not quibble that the MB's head is as much part of the torso (Exco) and a torsoless head is as good as a dead duck in the water. Go read the relevant portions in a sequential unbroken chain and you will get the picture unless you are a moron with nothing but rocks between your ears!
3. Even if one is uncomfortable with the new take I am proposing in (2), a cursory comparison of the relevant sections with those in the Federal Constitution would yield the same outcome. In fact, 2 selfstyled and pubically acclaimed constitutional experts have written refreshingly candid pieces on how this "lacuna" can be melded into a man-made pool for frogs to hop about at will. You know who, right...yeah they are from the other side of midnight..hahahaha.... LOL
4. "discretion"
"oh how thou art the Word
that will break the earth
into shards of potsherd
when e'vrything's absurd
Quibbled art thou my dear word
by the goatherd and the swineherd
Oh how charlatans doeth pervert
thy meaning for their sherbet
Oh fie..every coward, dastard bastard
for thee are none but the jaibird
who shalt be guttered...
Oh my sweet nightingale
thy soul flits above the gale
to regale the truth of a tale
that will forever impale
the lies of a telltale............"
Now..now..after that short paean to my sweetheart of the day : "discretion" lets see what this tri-syllabic that seamlesly glides from the voiced plosive /d/ into the alveolar fricative /s/ moving into a firm velar /kre/before petering out gracefully in the sigh of a melliflous s/h′n" ...ah the harmony of discretion:
dis·cre·tion (di skres̸h′ən)
noun
a. the freedom or authority to make decisions and choices; power to judge or act
b. the quality of being discreet, or careful about what one does and says; prudence
Archaic the action or power of discerning; judgment
Etymology: ME discrecioun <>
discretion n. the power of a judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract, trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion within general legal guidelines. Examples: 1) a judge may have discretion as to the amount of a fine or whether to grant a continuance of a trial; 2) a trustee or executor of an estate may have discretion to divide assets among the beneficiaries so long as the value to each is approximately equal; 3) a district attorney may have discretion to charge a crime as a misdemeanor (maximum term of one year) or felony; 4) a Governor may have discretion to grant a pardon; or 5) a planning commission may use its discretion to grant or not to grant a variance to a zoning ordinance.
Sources=Sources 4096;law()
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
DISCRETION, practice. When it is said that something is left to the discretion of a judge, it signifies that he ought to decide according to the rules of equity, and the nature of circumstances. Louis. Code, art. 3522, No. 13; 2 Inst. 50, 298; 4 Serg. & Rawle, 265; 3 Burr. 2539.
Left to his OWN judgement, HRH after determining the nature of circumstances, decided to act according the rules of equity by:
1. interviewing each Adun as to the nature of their stand
2. calling all 31 aduns for a formal meeting
and appointing the MB thereof as the Constitution never says one government per parliament..so habislah cerita...my darling fanclub...LOL...eh not quite...............
for in the minds of sore losers, hypocrites, idiots, charlatans, legal thugs and other dissolutes there arose a deep sense of collective grief for it was a bitter pill to swallow all the ironies of frogging, the one art they came close to perfecting.
And so equanimity and magnamity flies like a forlorn pair of twin swallows away from a once quiet meadow and in gallops like the horsemen of apocalyse, the hailstones of rancour, the lightning of enmity, the thunder of dissent so much so that my poor Perak is now inundated with enmity, swamped in crappie, drenched in perfidy and mired in ennui.
No i am not gloating, in the same way I was not downcast when the High Court delivered an apposite verdict 2 weeks ago. No, I am not gloating even when the decision very much vindicates the jottings I made regarding the Perak imbroglio. As I said only imbeciles, spurned she-bitches, dissolutes would rant and rave about the "unfairness of it all" when there was nothing unfair nor perfidious on how the whole procedure of dissolving and constituting a new government was conducted in the first place. 4 reasons why:
1. The Perak Constitution is clear regarding what happens when a MB loses confidence. The law is silent on how the determination of that loss should be made. The lower court verdict based itself solely on a 42 year old precedent so holed with discrepancies that it will put my missus' teeny weey see through negligee to mortal shame. A much later decision regarding an almost contemporaneous situation received short shrift much less critical analysis . The end result was a verdict that was so embarrassed of itself that it was begging to be struck down and struck down it was by three unanimous heads rather than one know-it-all.
2. On reflection, if one reads the relevant sections from 16(1) to 16(7), one is struck by how much procedural the whole stuff is as much as it is legal! From how the ruler appoints the MB, to how the exco is constituted to how the MB and the exco die a natural death when he loses confidence. So intertwined are the two by their legal umblical cord that it is a touching sight to read and imagine.The MB and the exco? Well, any right thinking individual equipped with the basic rudiments of English and a thinking top would not quibble that the MB's head is as much part of the torso (Exco) and a torsoless head is as good as a dead duck in the water. Go read the relevant portions in a sequential unbroken chain and you will get the picture unless you are a moron with nothing but rocks between your ears!
3. Even if one is uncomfortable with the new take I am proposing in (2), a cursory comparison of the relevant sections with those in the Federal Constitution would yield the same outcome. In fact, 2 selfstyled and pubically acclaimed constitutional experts have written refreshingly candid pieces on how this "lacuna" can be melded into a man-made pool for frogs to hop about at will. You know who, right...yeah they are from the other side of midnight..hahahaha.... LOL
4. "discretion"
"oh how thou art the Word
that will break the earth
into shards of potsherd
when e'vrything's absurd
Quibbled art thou my dear word
by the goatherd and the swineherd
Oh how charlatans doeth pervert
thy meaning for their sherbet
Oh fie..every coward, dastard bastard
for thee are none but the jaibird
who shalt be guttered...
Oh my sweet nightingale
thy soul flits above the gale
to regale the truth of a tale
that will forever impale
the lies of a telltale............"
Now..now..after that short paean to my sweetheart of the day : "discretion" lets see what this tri-syllabic that seamlesly glides from the voiced plosive /d/ into the alveolar fricative /s/ moving into a firm velar /kre/before petering out gracefully in the sigh of a melliflous s/h′n" ...ah the harmony of discretion:
dis·cre·tion (di skres̸h′ən)
noun
a. the freedom or authority to make decisions and choices; power to judge or act
b. the quality of being discreet, or careful about what one does and says; prudence
Archaic the action or power of discerning; judgment
Etymology: ME discrecioun <>
discretion n. the power of a judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract, trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion within general legal guidelines. Examples: 1) a judge may have discretion as to the amount of a fine or whether to grant a continuance of a trial; 2) a trustee or executor of an estate may have discretion to divide assets among the beneficiaries so long as the value to each is approximately equal; 3) a district attorney may have discretion to charge a crime as a misdemeanor (maximum term of one year) or felony; 4) a Governor may have discretion to grant a pardon; or 5) a planning commission may use its discretion to grant or not to grant a variance to a zoning ordinance.
Sources=Sources 4096;law()
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
DISCRETION, practice. When it is said that something is left to the discretion of a judge, it signifies that he ought to decide according to the rules of equity, and the nature of circumstances. Louis. Code, art. 3522, No. 13; 2 Inst. 50, 298; 4 Serg. & Rawle, 265; 3 Burr. 2539.
Left to his OWN judgement, HRH after determining the nature of circumstances, decided to act according the rules of equity by:
1. interviewing each Adun as to the nature of their stand
2. calling all 31 aduns for a formal meeting
and appointing the MB thereof as the Constitution never says one government per parliament..so habislah cerita...my darling fanclub...LOL...eh not quite...............
for in the minds of sore losers, hypocrites, idiots, charlatans, legal thugs and other dissolutes there arose a deep sense of collective grief for it was a bitter pill to swallow all the ironies of frogging, the one art they came close to perfecting.
And so equanimity and magnamity flies like a forlorn pair of twin swallows away from a once quiet meadow and in gallops like the horsemen of apocalyse, the hailstones of rancour, the lightning of enmity, the thunder of dissent so much so that my poor Perak is now inundated with enmity, swamped in crappie, drenched in perfidy and mired in ennui.
Revert: Pity the collateral damage wrought by power crazy fiends and their mindless acolytes.........
And besides, Mrs Forthby in the flesh was a different kettle of fish to Mrs Forthby in his fantasies. In the latter she had a multitude of perverse inclinations, which corresponded exactly with his own unfortunate requirements, while possessing a discretion that would have done credit to aTrappist nun. In the flesh she was disappointingly different. -Sharpe,Tom (Thomas Ridley)
And besides, Mrs Forthby in the flesh was a different kettle of fish to Mrs Forthby in his fantasies. In the latter she had a multitude of perverse inclinations, which corresponded exactly with his own unfortunate requirements, while possessing a discretion that would have done credit to aTrappist nun. In the flesh she was disappointingly different. -Sharpe,Tom (Thomas Ridley)
No comments:
Post a Comment