The Best of Nazrisms!

malapropism: the incorrect use of a word by substituting a similar-sounding word with different meaning, usually with comic effect

nazrism: an idiotic response to a political issue, as a result of lack of proper thinking on the matter and the need to justify the government’s actions (but I guess I shouldn’t call it such, people might mistake the r with an m!)

I received an SMS from a friend early this morning, who was complaining about Minister in PM’s Department Datuk Nazri Aziz’s interview in the New Straits Times: “Baca NST x? Nazri’s comments on Lingam. Ya Allah! Malu aku dia menteri!”

Later, on the way to my sister’s open house, my dad remarked: “Nazri is behaving like a school kid.” I thought my dad was talking about my sister (who has a similar name), only when he referred to the interview that he was referring to the YB.

Another university student messaged me later in the day, which for the purposes of decorum I should not reproduce his disgust with Nazri.

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?

Hmm, I’ve been to so many open houses and events (I’m talking about non-Keadilan ones) and many people are talking about it.

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: 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.

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…

Using the same logic, how does Nazri know that the people he talk to constitute the majority of Malaysians? In what way are the 200 plus MPs the majority of Malaysians? And, Pak Menteri, reading your interview, I seriously think our ministers are far, far not up to standard! Many bloggers I’m sure can answer better than you!

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…

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.

Q: Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan said the reason they walked was that they felt all their appeals were falling on deaf ears.

A: It will fall on deafer ears, I can tell you.

Q: But why would you want to cover your ears?

A: They should know — they are lawyers. Their profession is adversarial. When they go in to court, there are two sides — the defendant and the plaintiff.

Even the two counsel cannot agree on how the law should be interpreted. So, you need the judge.

So, they fight. But at the end of the day, they respect the decision made by the judge. They go out, shake hands, that’s it.

In giving their views on the judiciary, they must understand that there are two sides to the argument. And theirs may not be the right one. So they must accept the decision. As lawyers, they should.

They cannot expect that whatever memorandum they give to us, we must agree.

Why couldn’t they have called to make an appointment? I’m sure the PM would have met them.

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…

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.

Does Pak Menteri remember his history lessons, on how UMNO marched to protest the Malayan Union? What about UMNO Youth’s protests against Condoleeza Rice and Burma Junta? The right to assemble is part and parcel of our fundamental freedoms, and more often than not is still the best way to get the powers-that-be to pay attention. Fine, disagree with the Bar on their protest, but address their demands. That should be his focus.

Nazri deserves one special edition of Malaysian Politicians Say the Darndest Things! to include all his Nazrisms!