You can damn with faint praise; you can
also achieve the same with an aria of it. An example of the first was
when George Bernard Shaw extended two tickets to the opening night of
one of his plays to Winston Churchill. “One for you and another for a
friend, if you have one,” jibed the playwright.
Britain’s wartime leader volleyed back:
He said he would like to attend the opening night’s programme but
official duties prevented him; however, he would be free to attend the
second night’s staging, “if there is one.”
Private eye P Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, laid it on copiously when he praised
fellow legal practitioner Cecil Abraham’s integrity which he said was a
byword among lawyers in the latter’s 40 years of service to the
Malaysian Bar.
Americk (right) said he could
not conceive that someone of Abraham’s vaunted stature would countenance
the drawing up of a false statutory declaration such as carpet trader
Deepak Jaikishan had indicated was the case with Balasubramaniam’s
second SD that reversed the sensational avowals contained in his first.
Given the gravity of the contents of his
first SD, elements of which shed light on the 2006 murder of the
Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu, there was no taking the matter
lightly.
Days have passed since Americk
unequivocally vouched for Abraham’s probity, but Abraham himself is
seemingly unperturbed by the brouhaha, holding his counsel in the face
of a hail of imprecations.
The chairperson of one of the panels within the ambit of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission interjected
in the unfolding drama of the contradictory statutory declarations and
its attendant issue of responsibility for them by revealing that Abraham
had nothing to do with the MACC’s decision to close its investigation
of Balasubramaniam’s conflicting declarations. Abraham (left) is a member of the panel tasked with reviewing the MACC’s operational procedures.
Here was a case of weighty individuals
rising to speak up for someone who apparently opts for the silence that
is not of the kind that purveyor of aphoristic maxims, La Rochefoucauld,
held was the mark of a man who distrusts himself.
This silence is possibly the choice of
one who seems intent on tiptoeing through a frightful thicket, mindful
or not of what the poet Dante said about the hottest places in hell
being reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain
their neutrality (read: silence).
The law is a charged field
Read More / Baca Lagi >>