On other occasions, the documents tendered in Court prove that the witness has been lying. Documents don't lie. Witnesses do.
However, one of the more frequent sign that a witness has been lying is contradictory statements made by him. There are of course some reasonable explanation why a witness' testimony is contradictory. Sometimes, the event in issue has taken place a long time ago. As such, his may not have a perfect memory on the event anymore. Thus he contradicts himself. On some other occasions, the fact in dispute is subjective in nature and thus open to interpretation. In that event, contradiction may also occur.
Barring those circumstances, contradictions in a witness' testimony is a standard cause for the lying-o-meter bell to ring.
Which brings me to the subject of this article.
After the cow-head incident last week, I remember reading on MalaysiaKini and the Malaysian Insider that the head of the resident committee of section 23 said that they (the demonstrators) did not know where the cow-head came from. In other words, the carrying of the bleeding cow-head and the acts of spitting and stomping on the cow-head were not planned by the organisers. That implies that a third party was doing those things.
Of course, at this juncture normal reasonable people would ask why the hell didn't the demonstrators ask the so called third party to stop carrying the cow-head or spitting and stomping on it. Well, that in itself is a mystery.
Then, Minister Hishamuddin met the residents. In a press conference after the meeting, Minister Hishamuddin said the same thing. This is what he was quoted as saying by a Malaysian Insider report :
"They, the organisers, who are sitting left and right of me, didn't even know that somebody was going to bring the head of the cow during that demonstration".
Okay. I am sure that was not made up by Minister Hishamuddin. He was obviously told by the one who was sitting left and right of him at the press conference as such. And I am sure he believed what he had been told. I don't blame him for that as I would have done the same thing as well.
Now. Today, a new fact crept out in the Malaysia Today report . YB Datuk Dr Mohd Khir Toyo (have I got all that correct?, well, sorry if I didn't) was quoted as saying:
"The reason (the cow's head) was brought was to show that t(he State Government)had acted without thinking as the site (for the Hindu temple) was ready i(n section 11) so why relocate (to section 23)? The state government did not think...the cow's head was displayed because it is a stupid animal, to show that the state government made a stupid decision and disrupted the peace of section 23 residents. (It has) nothing to do with religious issues."
This is what I call contradictory remarks, although in this case, the contradiction does not come from the same person. However, it does come from persons belonging to the same faction, namely UMNO or Barisan Nasional. Do also bear in mind that there were local UMNO hot shots among the demonstrators.
So, which is which? Is it a fact that the cow-head was not brought by the demonstrators? Is it a fact that the cow-head was brought by a mysterious third party without the knowledge of the organisers of the demonstration? Is it a fact that the organisers did not know that the cow head was going to be brought?
Or, is it a fact that, as YB Datuk Dr Mohd Khir so diligently pointed out, the cow head was indeed brought to symbolise the state government's stupidity in the matter (as the cow is a stupid animal, according to him)? If so, then the good YB is implying that the cow head was in fact "brought" by the demonstrators for a specific purpose, to wit, to signify stupidity.
I won't go into the merit or demerit of such purpose as it is beyond the scope of this article, although I must add that I am far from being convinced that cows symbolise stupidity.
It would appear then that there is an obvious contradiction between the statement made by the resident committee head and Minister Hishamuddin and the one which was said by the opposition leader of the Selangor legislative assembly. Which is the correct version then? Who is telling untruth? I wouldn't know.
However, YB Datuk Dr Mohd Khir did not stop there. He also said:
"I don't know who brought it.."
Which begs the question, if he doesn't have a clue as to who brought the cow-head, how would he know that the cow-head was in fact brought to symbolise stupidity? Who told him that one? Now, if he was told of the fact that the cow-head was brought to symbolise stupidity, then the person who told him must know who brought the cow-head. But the YB said he doesn't know who brought it.
The conclusion to be made from this wholly confusing statement is this. The good YB had made his own conclusion. And, with all due respect, that conclusion was made without any basis whatsoever. In other words, that conclusion is just a personal opinion.
A personal opinion made without basis and without expertise ( I don't think the good YB is an expert in reading minds. I, of course, stand corrected on this, because, in Malaysia, miracles do happen. And quite frequent too, I must say) is inadmissible.
Have a good weekend everyone.