Monday, August 27, 2012



Mat Zain, former senior police officer, states there is no other body that is qualified to adjudicate on the present attorney-general than a tribunal.
He said Najib had last March rejected the calls for a tribunal although many credible exposures had been made over Gani’s misconduct in the public domain.
“I placed my trust on the PM to reconsider that stand. If Najib was willing to have an RCI to investigate the influx of illegal immigrants into Sabah, then he should consider the wishes of the people in the peninsula who had asked many times for a tribunal to be formed against Gani for the alleged misconduct,” he said.
Mat Zain Ibrahim, in his open letter sent to Najib two days ago, also revealed another possible misconduct by Gani with regard to documents relating to Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) investigations into the bank accounts of former Malacca chief minister Rahim Tamby Chik.
I always thought that nobody is invincible and untouchable except the Almighty! The question that invariably accompanies this would be: What “hold” has the AG on Jib? Something to ponder over
One can drive a very large truck of suspect cargo through the door marked ‘patriotism’. Once the integrity of the nation is invoked and the spectre of social and communal unrest is seen as being at stake, the state buys for itself a lot of room for actions that might have otherwise seemed unpalatable. In that sense, the decision to impose some kind of regulation The purpose in introducing this law is to gag the opposition and civil society critics of the regime. The recent exemption of Umno Youth from being prosecuted under Section 114A by the police is proof this legislation is directed at silencing the enemies of the regime. There is a third way of repealing Section 114A of the Evidence Act. Press the reset button on GE13 and begin anew as a nation to rebuild and restore our twisted legal system and broken down state institutions.
The contentious Section 114A of the amended Evidence Act can be abolished via a constitutional challenge, said Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee.
In an email response, he said Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the federal constitution state that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, and that everyone has equal protection of the law.
Furthermore, under Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every individual is innocent until proven guilty when charged with a penal offence.
“Our Federal Court (has) reiterated that our criminal justice system stands on the twin pillars of the burden of proof lying with the prosecution and the common law principle of presumption of innocence. (These) together safeguard the guarantee of the right to a fair trial,” Lim said.
He explained that the argument with Section 114A is that it goes against the presumption of innocence, and that it is harder to prove guilt in case of offences involving the Internet.
This is because of free access leaves the network host responsible any inappropriate action.
Another way of resolving the situation, Lim said, would be by asking Parliament and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail (right)to persuade the authorities and the government’s chief legal adviser to remove the amendment from the statute books.
According the Star, the Bar Council had met Abdul Gani last Friday at his office in Putrajaya.
Section 114A was introduced as an amendment to the Evidence Act in April.
It presumes that any person or organisation whose name is carried together with any online publication is the author of that content. 
Following are some comments by some Malaysiakini readers”
Jiminy Qrikert: Just imagine what this does to the morale, self-image and honour of the police force.
These are the men and women who are faced with the increasing barrage of reports of crime but are forced to be a part of this huge lie and succumb to the political pressures to doctor data to prop up their political masters.
They know it’s a lie but are helpless to prevent it. At the same time, they see the extent of corruption committed by these political masters who are powerful enough to literally get away with murder.
It does not take much pushing or temptation for these police to also succumb to crime and corruption since you might as well join them if you can’t beat them.
No wonder, Umno-BN is so deeply buried in corruption as the police are now guilty accomplices in spinning a crime into a non-crime.
Amused Malaysian: Why crime statistics only. What about Hari Raya road fatalities? There’s none of the fuss of previous years. Don’t tell me there are no road fatalities this Raya.
(Just wondering if PWC has morphed into a government SPA…..massaging the dead to live again…..kudos to JPJ for a deathless balik kampong record!)
Kgen: It is not uncommon to massage figures to portray a better picture but this has been carried too far so much so that reality and statistics move in opposite directions.
This is when the strategy backfires as the public totally rejects the said statistics. Yet the government still insists that crime is a perception problem because its statistics say so. This is an insult to our intelligence.
What government think-tank Pemandu is doing is like trying to sell ice to Eskimos by saying that the natural ice around them is a false perception.
Well, Mr IGP (inspector-general of police), your brilliant little scheme has been found out. You had Pemandu fooled completely but not us, the suffering public who has first-hand experience of crime.
Please don’t insult us by saying ‘perception’ again and that goes for that loudmouth home minister who grudgingly said police will focus on fighting crime as if that is something extraneous for them.
If the person or organisation is not the author, it is up to them to prove innocence. The same applies to network owners whose Internet connectivity is used by others for ‘illegal’ activities.But instead, the government has chosen to act with staggering incompetence and transparent dishonesty, in deciding to use this discretion by trying to block  a reported 300 items that include websites and 21 twitter handles, many of which have nothing to do with Assam or what happened thereafter. As persuasive the list of those blocked is a bizarre one, as it includes journalists and politicians among others, and the names indicate that the Government ‘s intentions are mala fide in that there is a clear attempt to muzzle dissent as well as plain stupid given that there are some on the list who by the widest stretch of imagination, cannot be seen as a threat to anything, let alone something as lofty as the integrity of the nation.  What the state has effectively done is to confirm all anxieties that existed about its real intentions. That it has a fundamental discomfort with criticism and a deep hostility towards any attempt to ridicule its actions and that it will use any excuse it gets to launch an attack on the freedom of expression on the Internet. Besides, even if the attempt had been honest in trying to stop rumour-mongering, the actions taken were hardly likely to have the desired impact. The digital world is too agile and inventive for the lumbering machinery of the government to match up to, and would easily bypass these crude attempts at blocking the flow of information.But there is an issue with social media that needs some introspection. When all readers turn broadcasters, what happens to the rights of those who are being written about? Earlier the freedom to expression was effectively outsourced to mainstream media and while it strove to represent public opinion, it did not allow the public to express itself directly, except in highly controlled ways. Getting a letter published in the Letters to the Editor space, for instance, was often a heroic struggle. Traditional media is governed, on paper, by a set of guidelines and rules that attempt to provide protection to those impacted by what they publish or broadcast and legal redress is available to those that feel aggrieved by the same. In reality, particularly in India, the act of going to court and pursuing a case of defamation is so difficult, expensive and time-consuming that the right for redress often  remains theoretical. The protection, such as it is exists, comes because news organisations have some internal guidelines about what they will or will not publish, and imperfect as they increasingly might be, at least they exist.
Meeting Malaysia’s notorious triads
Ah Hing says he makes deals with politicians and policemen
As part of the BBC’s Who Runs Your World? series, Jonathan Kent in Kuala Lumpur looks at how Malaysia’s notorious triad gangs are run.
In my attempt to find out more the triads, I made the ground rules clear from the start.
I didn’t want specifics, I didn’t want details and I certainly didn’t want names. I just wanted to know how the gangs worked.
I have no idea what Ah Hing’s real name is, but I do know that he is being groomed to take over as tai ko – big brother (a term triad members use for their bosses) – in a gang that operates in a small town in northern Malaysia.
We had chosen a room in an old shop house in which to meet. Ah Hing looked like many working class Malaysian Chinese, with heavy jewellery, cheap shoes and spiky hair. His minder collected tattoos.
“We do sell some ecstasy pills and that is how we make a living, me and my friends,” he said.
“We do take girls for prostitution, and this is much easier to do than ecstasy because usually the government will not bother us when we do this.”readmore

No comments:

Post a Comment