Deserves all the brickbats and hate, both are hypocrites

Malaysiakini : Full of crappy excuses by a sycophant practicing sycophancy in art form. Nathaniel forgets the millions of young Non Malay lives destroyed by her father.

You do not know that she is an ardent fan of the Tariq Ramadan, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist outfit plus that he is a rapist, to boot!! Patriotism, in the heart of my child ? I am waiting for the day when I can pee on his grave and dance on it. He is an anti Semitic and evil person. Well, I will stop here, see some of the choice comments by Malaysiakini readers here.

VioletCobra9162 : At least I know I have one less columnist to follow…this Nat fellow is how a typical human being failed in his upbringing to embrace civic consciousness and practice not to do unto others what you don’t wish upon yourself.

Pensieve : Nathaniel, Ghazali may not have been named in Marina's column as you say in this article, but he was in the Mkini article which cited page 50 of her book. In the Apple and the Tree, page 50, Ghazali was named and ridiculed as loquacious. This is why there was an outcry from the public about her apology which did not address the real identity of the person who made that remark.

Will there be a correction as in Mahathir named as the one who spoke those fateful words, or will page 50 be emoved entirely from the book? The resulting change will determine the quality of Marina 's apology. We'll wait and see.

jinggo : Nathaniel you are missing the plot. Everything she complained about had its beginnings with the leadership of her father. Never once she equated the wrongs that her father (I cannot in all sincerity mention his name) did to our beloved country. When she does accept her father’s role in ruining the harmony that we once enjoyed then we will have the compassion to forgive her mistake.

The Wakandan : Probably the bone of contention is Marina’s apology. Scouring for her apology details, this is the nearest that she said regarding her mistake in attributing Mahathir’s threat to Ghazali, “I unreservedly apologise to anyone I have hurt or offended by this mistake.” Does this amount to unreserved apology?

Is it enough? Usually a newspaper’s correction for a misreport is to correct the mistake. Marina did not. She in fact defended herself by saying she was not trying to change history. She actually justified the mistake owing to poor memory and unable to understand the issue as a teenager. But she is not a teenager now, is she? She is a very experienced activist and writer. These facts would stand against her.

Her apology would be really unreserved had she taken the next step to rectify the mistake by saying, “actually it was the DPM who said the shoot to kill, not the then-Home Minister.” Since she did not mention names in the column, it would be sufficed not to mention them in the apology but she should correct the mistake nevertheless.

Having omitted the precise offending sentence, she therefore had committed a sin of omission, which she camouflaged with flowery words which a writer has problem in saying. How is that, Marina? Would you care to rephrase your apology and be the darling of liberal Malaysians once again? Or is it too late now?

Kee Thuan Chye : Marina has to be exposed for her so-called "gaffe", plain and simple, because in writing what she did, she laid the blame for the "shoot" order on none other than her father's political rival when her own father was the culprit.

And Ghazali is unable to set her right because he's not alive anymore. Furthermore, she did it twice, the first time in a published book, which is a record for posterity. It's also ironic that she would have had access to an authoritative testament of who actually said the "shoot" word but she still got it, supposedly, wrong.

It's also significant that when she apologised, she did not mention that it was her father who should have been held responsible. That says a lot about the degree of sincerity and transparency in her apology.

Vent :"Are we targeting Marina for her father’s sins?" No "we" are not. "We" are targeting HER for her sins of duplicity and in this case of her wilful omission of her father’s sin of murderous intent with pathological impunity and complete disdain for GS's reputation just so as to sanitize the irredeemable image of her incorrigible father! As for targeting her vile father please don't get me started. If u want to be goody-two-shoes that's your problem. But don't foist your self-righteousness on us! BTW were you pressurised to do this to salvage 'darling daughter's' image? Just asking?

More brickbats for Nathaniel and Marina here................