Call for reasons... (I'm still around in case anybody is asking)
Wow… I have passed three New Year. That’s a long gap. To my friends who asked me why didn’t I update my blog. A simple answer was given. I was hibernating during the winter like the bears but I woke up a little early.
During theperiod of my hibernation, a lot had happened. The police was given several shocks and a family in Perlis sued the Road Transport Department. Not to mention also, the Minister of Works got all worked up due to comments made by several quarters against him and his ministry in relation to the Middle Ring Road II, the memorandum by the non-Muslim cabinet members and a son of senior officer in the Home Ministry was questioned by the police in relation to a case. The latest being the caricature of Prophet Muhammad in the newspaper in Denmark that cause the outrage in some countries.
No doubt that police have carried out several actions which are questionable but nobody highlighted the facts that those who were apprehended and treated in such manner was either a suspect of a crime or later have been convicted of a crime. The latest being the shaven head case in Kajang. Nobody says that those men were having a nice time playing mahjong (or gambling) which is wrong according to law. No need for me to point out under which section or which provision of the law. The bottom line is that they broke the law. The police was acting within the ambit where the laws allow them to do so. And being bald is not that bad. They are already old anyway and going to be naturally bald. So what’s the fuss?
Some of you may say, well I can’t see it in any written law that police personnel can do a strip search on a detainee (in the case of nude squat) but believe me if all laws are to be written, then the LBS or MLJ would have been making a lot of money already. Have you ever heard of customary laws? I don’t think customary laws are written. If there is, may be it is just a fraction of the customary laws and I can assure you that customary laws is accepted by the courts in Malaysia. Read Kyshe’s Law Report if you don’t believe me. The first case you should check out is in Sahrip v. Mitchell. Some laws are not written and the court has to take judicial notice of the existence of these laws.
We all ought to bear in mind that the police are there to protect our interest and let’s not forget, when we are in the cradle of our bed every night, these people were up to keep peace and protect our well being for a return not equal to what they have given to the public. Ask the police constable what is their starting pay. Sad isn’t it?
Then the RTD case where RTD personnel allegedly injure a student by throwing a steel chair to that “poor student”. But nobody highlighted the fact that the “poor student” has violated several road transport regulations. One of it being riding without a valid licence and not forgetting that he was riding without wearing a safety helmet. May be we forgot the headlines in the newspaper where officers with the police and the RTD have been injured and some have died because of these people. Call them “rempit” or whatever, they are still the culprit. Not the authorities. We have to acknowledge the fact that these people took a gamble and they gave their lives for our safety on the road. But we never see it that way.
Furthermore, in each investigation, the police have to conduct a thorough investigation before going to the AG’s Chamber or the relevant authorities for further action. For the interest of justice, we don’t want another Norita’s case or another Datuk Norjan Khan Bahadar’s case right? (I am not implying that the accused in both cases are guilty here. Just to show how incomplete investigation may do to a case). If the court feel that any statement was given under duress, then after a “trial within a trial” the court may determine whether the evidence may be admissible or not. In all court trials, it is not for the public or the newspaper to decide. It is for the court to decide.
However, during the recent event, police were given slap left and right and what the cabinet decision was? To set up another commission to investigate. I know that the government’s intention was clear and it is to be transparent. But does being transparent mean that you have to lean and follow every opinion in the newspaper? Then, where lies the executive authority? We have to consider each and every facts of the matter before we say anything. That is not the practice in the government today. In that sense, I wish Tun Mahathir is still around or on second thought, may be we should change the government already. Flip the coin and let the party other than Coalition Front (Barisan Nasional la) to rule for a while.
Secondly, the case where the Minister of Works got all worked up with the comments made by the public in the newspaper and in the television itself. We all know that the MRRII caters the traffic to and from Damansara to Kepong and the adjacent areas daily. However, the question still lies on whether the highway is safe. It was reported that the highway is swinging like pendulum. I can’t verify that because the last time I use the highway was years ago. But when several people say it, may be it is true. A Malay proverb says, “kalau tiada angin, masakan pokok bergoyang”. As compared to the issue, “kalau tak rosak, masakan MRRII bergoyang”. Would excessive shake cause the highway to collapsed? The question is yet to be answered. But we don’t want to see the “rakyat jelata” (as Dato S Samy refers to the orang ramai) suffer just one minister say it is okay to use the MRRII. It is wise that the cabinet consider the disclosure of the report of the independent adviser to the public.
However, the issue on MRRII is not the one that makes me feel uneasy. The real issue that woke me up is when some cabinet minister had a meeting without the Prime Minister and submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister stating among others that the Article 121 (1A) should be amended as a result of the case of Mohamad Bin Abdullah (the person (Malaysian la) who conquered Everest). I don’t know whether they are historically blind or they are not “well verse” with the reason why Article 121 (1A) came about in 1988. It is due to the fact that before the 1988 amendments, the civil court has power to hear disputes where Shariah court’s jurisdiction should be the one hearing that application. Furthermore, that amendments is to stop Muslims to go to the civil court if they were to loose in the Shariah proceeding. This will not put an end to the proceeding and Shariah matters should not be entangled with the civil matters because there is different set of rule which applies to the matters.
In addition, the certificate issued by the relevant authorities is a prima facie evidence of a person’s status. In the light of the case in the above paragraph, the paramount consideration is the certificate. There is no need go and dispute the rest. And again, my view on the government’s action in handling the situation is weak. We are living in a multiracial and multi religious community and one need to respect each other’s religion and race. I don’t think one has the right to come and tell the other what are the rule they should subject themselves to and vice versa. So live and let live. No one has to recline and bend the rule under his or her religion just to satisfy the other. The point I am trying to make here is we live and let the other live.
I am not trying to instigate anybody here to hate other religion but what I am trying to say here is that everybody should respect the other in whatever he or she chooses. Right? Let’s live in harmony and try not to hurt anybody and touch on the sensitive issues. The caricature of the Holy Prophet Muhammad is just one example of one being insensitive of the other.
Lastly, I think I know the person who was questioned by the police in relation to a crime committed by another person. He is the son of a VIP in the Home Ministry and I think he is my junior in the University and some of my friends have confirmed that it is the person I suspected. However, it is a conundrum to me, of what happen next because no action was taken against him and no news reported after the report that he was questioned by the police. Was it due to his connection with the police or government officials or it is due to the fact that there was no case against him (which is improbable to me). It has yet to be answered. Let’s just hang around and see what’s his next steps will be.
As a conclusion, I think the government needs to be firmer in certain issue and not to jump at any particular issue just yet. I didn’t see this kind of problem before when Tun M was the Prime Minister. And let’s not forget that there are thousand people who can carry out the task and think matters thoroughly but the cabinet and the VVIP/VIP need not give statement without first see and examine the fact of the case. Let’s put away the “latah” habit and let us move forward together not against each other.
During theperiod of my hibernation, a lot had happened. The police was given several shocks and a family in Perlis sued the Road Transport Department. Not to mention also, the Minister of Works got all worked up due to comments made by several quarters against him and his ministry in relation to the Middle Ring Road II, the memorandum by the non-Muslim cabinet members and a son of senior officer in the Home Ministry was questioned by the police in relation to a case. The latest being the caricature of Prophet Muhammad in the newspaper in Denmark that cause the outrage in some countries.
No doubt that police have carried out several actions which are questionable but nobody highlighted the facts that those who were apprehended and treated in such manner was either a suspect of a crime or later have been convicted of a crime. The latest being the shaven head case in Kajang. Nobody says that those men were having a nice time playing mahjong (or gambling) which is wrong according to law. No need for me to point out under which section or which provision of the law. The bottom line is that they broke the law. The police was acting within the ambit where the laws allow them to do so. And being bald is not that bad. They are already old anyway and going to be naturally bald. So what’s the fuss?
Some of you may say, well I can’t see it in any written law that police personnel can do a strip search on a detainee (in the case of nude squat) but believe me if all laws are to be written, then the LBS or MLJ would have been making a lot of money already. Have you ever heard of customary laws? I don’t think customary laws are written. If there is, may be it is just a fraction of the customary laws and I can assure you that customary laws is accepted by the courts in Malaysia. Read Kyshe’s Law Report if you don’t believe me. The first case you should check out is in Sahrip v. Mitchell. Some laws are not written and the court has to take judicial notice of the existence of these laws.
We all ought to bear in mind that the police are there to protect our interest and let’s not forget, when we are in the cradle of our bed every night, these people were up to keep peace and protect our well being for a return not equal to what they have given to the public. Ask the police constable what is their starting pay. Sad isn’t it?
Then the RTD case where RTD personnel allegedly injure a student by throwing a steel chair to that “poor student”. But nobody highlighted the fact that the “poor student” has violated several road transport regulations. One of it being riding without a valid licence and not forgetting that he was riding without wearing a safety helmet. May be we forgot the headlines in the newspaper where officers with the police and the RTD have been injured and some have died because of these people. Call them “rempit” or whatever, they are still the culprit. Not the authorities. We have to acknowledge the fact that these people took a gamble and they gave their lives for our safety on the road. But we never see it that way.
Furthermore, in each investigation, the police have to conduct a thorough investigation before going to the AG’s Chamber or the relevant authorities for further action. For the interest of justice, we don’t want another Norita’s case or another Datuk Norjan Khan Bahadar’s case right? (I am not implying that the accused in both cases are guilty here. Just to show how incomplete investigation may do to a case). If the court feel that any statement was given under duress, then after a “trial within a trial” the court may determine whether the evidence may be admissible or not. In all court trials, it is not for the public or the newspaper to decide. It is for the court to decide.
However, during the recent event, police were given slap left and right and what the cabinet decision was? To set up another commission to investigate. I know that the government’s intention was clear and it is to be transparent. But does being transparent mean that you have to lean and follow every opinion in the newspaper? Then, where lies the executive authority? We have to consider each and every facts of the matter before we say anything. That is not the practice in the government today. In that sense, I wish Tun Mahathir is still around or on second thought, may be we should change the government already. Flip the coin and let the party other than Coalition Front (Barisan Nasional la) to rule for a while.
Secondly, the case where the Minister of Works got all worked up with the comments made by the public in the newspaper and in the television itself. We all know that the MRRII caters the traffic to and from Damansara to Kepong and the adjacent areas daily. However, the question still lies on whether the highway is safe. It was reported that the highway is swinging like pendulum. I can’t verify that because the last time I use the highway was years ago. But when several people say it, may be it is true. A Malay proverb says, “kalau tiada angin, masakan pokok bergoyang”. As compared to the issue, “kalau tak rosak, masakan MRRII bergoyang”. Would excessive shake cause the highway to collapsed? The question is yet to be answered. But we don’t want to see the “rakyat jelata” (as Dato S Samy refers to the orang ramai) suffer just one minister say it is okay to use the MRRII. It is wise that the cabinet consider the disclosure of the report of the independent adviser to the public.
However, the issue on MRRII is not the one that makes me feel uneasy. The real issue that woke me up is when some cabinet minister had a meeting without the Prime Minister and submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister stating among others that the Article 121 (1A) should be amended as a result of the case of Mohamad Bin Abdullah (the person (Malaysian la) who conquered Everest). I don’t know whether they are historically blind or they are not “well verse” with the reason why Article 121 (1A) came about in 1988. It is due to the fact that before the 1988 amendments, the civil court has power to hear disputes where Shariah court’s jurisdiction should be the one hearing that application. Furthermore, that amendments is to stop Muslims to go to the civil court if they were to loose in the Shariah proceeding. This will not put an end to the proceeding and Shariah matters should not be entangled with the civil matters because there is different set of rule which applies to the matters.
In addition, the certificate issued by the relevant authorities is a prima facie evidence of a person’s status. In the light of the case in the above paragraph, the paramount consideration is the certificate. There is no need go and dispute the rest. And again, my view on the government’s action in handling the situation is weak. We are living in a multiracial and multi religious community and one need to respect each other’s religion and race. I don’t think one has the right to come and tell the other what are the rule they should subject themselves to and vice versa. So live and let live. No one has to recline and bend the rule under his or her religion just to satisfy the other. The point I am trying to make here is we live and let the other live.
I am not trying to instigate anybody here to hate other religion but what I am trying to say here is that everybody should respect the other in whatever he or she chooses. Right? Let’s live in harmony and try not to hurt anybody and touch on the sensitive issues. The caricature of the Holy Prophet Muhammad is just one example of one being insensitive of the other.
Lastly, I think I know the person who was questioned by the police in relation to a crime committed by another person. He is the son of a VIP in the Home Ministry and I think he is my junior in the University and some of my friends have confirmed that it is the person I suspected. However, it is a conundrum to me, of what happen next because no action was taken against him and no news reported after the report that he was questioned by the police. Was it due to his connection with the police or government officials or it is due to the fact that there was no case against him (which is improbable to me). It has yet to be answered. Let’s just hang around and see what’s his next steps will be.
As a conclusion, I think the government needs to be firmer in certain issue and not to jump at any particular issue just yet. I didn’t see this kind of problem before when Tun M was the Prime Minister. And let’s not forget that there are thousand people who can carry out the task and think matters thoroughly but the cabinet and the VVIP/VIP need not give statement without first see and examine the fact of the case. Let’s put away the “latah” habit and let us move forward together not against each other.
Lastly, if I forget ot wish anybody Happy New Year, Happy New Year then.
posted by Kampong_Boy at
2:58 pm
0 Comments
