Razak Baginda a Free Man...

The Shah Alam High Court here this morning acquitted Razak Baginda from the murder abetment charge in the infamous murder case of Altantuya Shaariibu. This decision was arrived at after the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against Razak Baginda at the end of the prosecution's case.

.

However, C/Insp Azilah Hadri and Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, members of the Special Action Squad (UTK), were not as lucky as Razak Baginda when they were ordered to enter their defence against the murder charge.

.

Read here

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/altantuya_case_razak_acquitted.html

.

So, as at now, Razak Baginda is a free man unless the prosecution decides to appeal against the acquittal.

.

The big question mark (should both Azilah and Sirul be found guilty at the end of the day for murdering Altantuya) that need to be answered remains as "who instructed Azilah and Sirul to kill Altantuya by using explosive C4 bomb? If not Razak Baginda, then who?" You guys can keep on speculating. To me it does not make sense if at the end of the day the Court found both Azilah and Sirul guilty of murder with the person who abet the murder is still at large.

.

The police needs to reopen the investigation file to find out who instructed the murder. If at all Azilah and Sirul are guilty for murder, the motive for the murder lies with the person who instructed the murder.

Illiegailsed the Illegal

I am 100% against Hindraf but I find the action made by the government to declare Hindraf as an illegal society is redundant because the government was actually illegalized what was already illegal. There is no need for the home minister to make such a declaration because Hindraf is already an illegal society.

.

Hamid Albar = Joker

Basis for Taking Legal Action

Do we take action because there is a basis for doing so or we take action because other people ask us to do so? If we choose the first option, we are doing the job that is required of us but if we choose the second option, then we are doing the job to satisfy certain quarters of people.
.
Hindraf is an unregistered society under the Societies Act 1966. Everybody knows that and the government is fully aware of that. Ever since they came into existence until now, they remain unregistered and ever since then until now, no action has been taken on them for being an unregistered society, which is obviously an offence under the Societies Act 1966.
.
Section 41 of the Act stipulates that any society that is not registered pursuant to Section 7 is an unlawful society while Section 42 and 43 of the Act stipulates the punishment for the office bearers and members of the unlawful society. Thus, the government, knowing that Hindraf is an unlawful society all these while had never ever intended to take action against the office bearers and the members of Hindraf but the moment the Hindraf supporters barged into the Cabinet’s Aidilfitri open house in PWTC recently demanding the abolishment of the ISA and the release of the ISA detainees and after the pressure and request by many quarters for the government to take action against Hindraf supporters, the government finally decided to take action against the Hindraf supporters under the Societies Act.
.
If I may just recap what was verbatimly reported in The Star on 9/10/2008: -
.
Deputy Home Minister Senator Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh said Thursday the Government will take action against the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) under the Societies Act 1966 for causing a disturbance during the Hari Raya function hosted by the Prime Minister and Muslim Cabinet ministers at the Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur last Wednesday. He said action would be taken soon on Hindraf, its committee, and members, even though the organisation was not registered...Wan Ahmad Farid said this when asked to comment on calls by several quarters that action be taken against Hindraf for their ‘rudeness’ at the function on the first day of Hari Raya. Wan Ahmad Farid said the Government through the Home Ministry would not hesitate to take action against an illegal organisation as it had to follow the law. "When it comes to the law, there must be no delay. Whatever action taken has to follow procedure and legal channels. What is clear in this matter is that whoever breaks the law must face action,” he said.

.
So my questions are: -
.
(1) Since I could not find any provision under the Societies Act 1966 on an offence for causing disturbance in private or public place, I wonder under what Section of the Societies Act 1966 the government is going to charge the Hindraf supporters?

.
(2) Even if I may overlook on the relevant provision, why is it charging them for causing disturbance and not on the basis of them as an unlawful society?

.
(3) Is the government suggesting that it is ok to remain as an unlawful society so long as you do not cause disturbance in private or public places especially so during the Prime Minister’s open house?

.
(4) Why is it the government wants to take action after receiving pressure form others and not on the basis that Hindraf is an unlawful society?

.
(5) Since the deputy Minister said that “when it comes to the law, there must be no delay”, why is it the government delays in taking action against Hindraf office bearers and supporters since they have been moving as an unlawful society since long time ago?

.
(6) Is the government suggesting that an offence is not an offence until and unless it affects the government especially the Prime Minister?

.
(7) If I get my facts right, the Deputy Home Minister is a lawyer by profession and I wonder from which university did he graduate from?
.
For The Star full report, click here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/9/nation/20081009133820&sec=nation

Why Saiful Is Not Being Charged???

I quote what Hamid Albar said as reported in Utusan online: -

.
"Contohnya, dalam kes rasuah, orang yang didakwa menerima sogokan kebiasaannya akan dituduh dan bukannya orang yang memberi serta membuat laporan" (translation: For e.g. in corruption case, the person who is alleged to have received bribe is normally charged and not the person who give bribe and lodge a report)

.
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/arkib.asp?y=2008&dt=0808&pub=utusan_malaysia&sec=muka%5Fhadapan&pg=mh_02.htm&arc=hive

.
Sounds logic right? But when people are not telling the truth, it is not easy to lie. They look fool when they try to but do not know how to fool others. That is how best to describe Hamid Albar.

.
Section 10 of the Anti Corruption Act 1997 provides among others that; -

.
Any person who by himself…
(a) corruptly solicits or receives…;or
(b) corruptly gives…to any person,
any gratification as an inducement to or a reward for…shall be guilty of an offence.

.
So, the “brilliant” and yet dumb Syed Hamid, where is it stated that the giver should not or cannot be charged for corruption?

.

The original posting

.

It looks like our government is almost full of idiots. The latest to join the group is Hamid Albar. Why I said he is an idiot is simply because of his answer when asked as to why Saiful was not charged together with Anwar. I watched the Buletin Utama last night when Hamid Albar was trying his best to impress the press as to why Saiful is not being charged. He had to think of the best words to use but in the end he really looks like a fool. Even my 1 year old son can speak better than him.
.
In fact, in one way or another, I think Hamid Albar has just confirmed the theory that allegation of sodomy against Anwar is a political conspiracy.
.
Here is the excerpts from The Star online: -
.
Saiful Bukhari Azlan is not being charged because he is the key witness in the sodomy case against PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.

.
He said that in a criminal justice system, when a person comes forward to report on a matter, the person would be protected.

.
“Usually, the victim is given protection,” Syed Hamid said after the MoU signing ceremony between Malaysian and Australian Governments on immigration cooperation here yesterday.

.
His answer shows his immaturity in dealing with such questions. What Hamid Albar is suggesting is that if for example “A” and “B” commit armed robbery and the distribution of their “profits” is not fair in the sense that “A” gets more than “B”, if “B” lodge a police report against “A”, the police will give protection to “B” and charge “A” simply because “B” is the complainant in this case and “B” will be the key prosecution witness against “A”. Sounds stupid isn’t it?

.
So, in Anwar’s case, the question was why Saiful was not charged together with Anwar? The answer should be (if Hamid Albar has a little bit of brain) police investigation shows Saiful was not a willing partner and therefore, he is a victim and there is no need for the police to go after the victim or something like that. End of the story.
.
However, when this idiot by the name of Hamid Albar said that Saiful is not being charged because he is the key witness in the case against Anwar, in one way or another, it simply shows that there is a conspiracy against Anwar because Saiful does not seems to be the victim but just a key witness. Why he is the key witness? Because he was Anwar’s partner in the sodomy act (as alleged by him). And it goes back to my example above between “A” and “B” who commit armed robbery.
.
Perhaps Anwar should also lodge a police report against Saiful for engaging in sodomy, so that Anwar will be given a protection as he will be the key witness against Saiful and in the end, there will be no case against both of them because they are key witness against one another. Solve the problem.
.
So, if the authority takes what this idiot by the name of Hamid Albar said as good, then I believe the case involving all policemen in Gemas police station (read here http://rozaimims.blogspot.com/2008/07/corruption-is-everywhere.html) should be closed because both parties lodged police reports against one another and in future, all the criminals can just lodge a police report because by doing so, they have turned their status from a “criminal” to a “key witness”.
.
Well done Hamid Albar. Now go back to school and study law. Oooops, I think this guy is a lawyer by profession. No comment!!!

.

But do not be surprise if later Hamid Albar say that his statement was misinterpreted because our politicians especially those from BN are very famous with this type of excuse. Hey! THere is no way they can say the wriong thing, ok...they are perfect!!!

.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/8/8/nation/22033038&sec=nation

Innocent until proven guilty

It was reported in today’s The Star that a rape accused was released by the Sessions Court after the Court found that the victim is still a virgin.

The Sessions Court Judge was reported to have said that the doctor who examined the victim stated that the girl was still a virgin and there had been no penetration.

If the doctor said that the victim is still virgin and there was no penetration, how did the prosecution came to a decision to charge the accused? Didn’t they have access to the medical report prior to charging the accused? I am sure that the prosecution must have their own basis to charge the accused in Court but the medical report on the victims condition i.e. no penetration makes me puzzled. That is very basic. What are the elements of rape? Is it a rape when there is no penetration? Definitely not.

Under Section 375 of the Penal Code, rape is said to have taken place when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman, among others, against her will and without her consent. Explanation to Section 375 provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
While one can lost the virginity for other reasons than sexual intercourse, the key word here is penetration. Can sexual intercourse take place without penetration? The answer is “no”. No penetration, means no sexual intercourse. No sexual intercourse means no rape. As simple as that.

However, on top of all that, I pity the accused, a 30-year old odd-job worker. He had been remanded for 4 years for nothing. What a waste of his precious time. Who to blame? The prosecution? The Investigating Officer? The system? Is there any remedy for him?

Rape is a non-bailable offence which simply means the accused can either be granted or refused bail. It depends on the circumstances surrounding the case. In this case, for reasons best known to the parties involved in the case, the bail was denied, causing the accused spending four years of his life in the prison.

When a person is denied bail, it is best that the hearing be expedite. In this case, I think four years is a long time to discharge the case. We need to remember this-“a man is innocent until proven guilty”.

Employment Law Part 2

Even though the Employment Act 1955 (EA) spelled out some minimum terms of employment, more often than not, the individual contract of employment will have a better, if not similar, terms of employment than the EA. Amongst others, the EA provides that: -

Notice period to terminate the employment– those who are employed for less than two years, the notice period is four weeks, those who are employed for more than two but less than five years, the notice period is six weeks while those who are employed for more than five years, the notice period is eight weeks. However, such notice period is not applicable in the event that the termination takes place as a result of breach by any party. If the breach is by the employee (which is serious enough to warrant dismissal), the employer may then dismiss the employee with immediate effect (of course after due inquiry is held). On the other hand, if the breach is by the employer, the employee may either refer the case to the Industrial Relations Department and still remain as an employee or walk out from the employment on the basis of constructive dismissal and lodge a complaint with the same department.

Contract deemed to be broken– A contract is deemed to be broken, by the employer if the employer fails to pay wages or by the employee, if the employee has been absent from work for more than two consecutive working days without prior leave from the employer unless the employee has reasonable excuse or has informed or attempted to inform the employer of his absence. In this case, the reasonable excuse may include but not limited to be admitted to hospital, involved in car accident, etc. However, with the advance telecommunication technology nowadays, there shall be no excuse for an employee not to inform his employer of his absence.

Payday– Every employer must pay the salary to its employees not later than the 7th day of the following month.

Paid maternity leave– Every female employee shall be eligible for sixty days paid maternity leave provided that the following two conditions are fulfilled: -
(a) she has been employed by the employer at any time in the four months immediately before her confinement; and
(b) she has been employed by the employer for a period of, or periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than ninety days during the nine months immediately before her confinement.

The two conditions means if the female employee commences her confinement on 1st of October, she must be in the employment at least on the 1st of June and during the period of nine months before her confinement i.e. at least on the 1st January until 1st of October, she must be in the employment for aggregating period of not less than ninety days.

Notwithstanding the above, the female employees’ eligibility for paid maternity leave shall ceased if at the time of her confinement, she has five or more surviving children. The key word here is “surviving”. So, if the female employees have given birth for more than 5 times but at the time of her next confinement, 4 or less of her children still alive, she is still entitled for the paid maternity leave.

Annual leave - those who are employed for less than two years, their annual leave entitlement is, eight days, those who are employed for more than two but less than five years, the annual leave entitlement is twelve days while those who are employed for more than five years, the annual leave entitlement is sixteen days.

Annual Medical Leave – (Out-patient) those who are employed for less than two years, the outpatient annual medical leave entitlement is fourteen days, those who are employed for more than two but less than five years, the outpatient annual medical leave entitlement is eighteen days while those who are employed for more than five years, the outpatient annual medical leave entitlement is twenty-two days.

(In-patient) Every employee is entitled to sixty days in-patient annual medical leave regardless of his number of years of service.

Notwithstanding the above, the maximum combination of out-patient and in-patient annual medical leave shall not be more than sixty days. In computing the annual medical entitlement, priority should be given to the in-patient medical leave over the out-patient medical leave. For example, if the employee’s entitlement for out-patient annual medical leave is twenty-two days and during one particular calendar year, he is hospitalized for a total of fifty days, his entitlement for out-patient medical leave for that particular year shall be ten days instead of twenty-two days.

As mentioned earlier, the above are only the minimum terms of employment provided for in the EA. However, in view of Section 7A of the EA (as discussed in Part 1), employer shall be at liberty to offer better terms (and definitely not less) than those stated in the EA.

Meanwhile, Section 7B of the EA provides that any employer is also at liberty to offer any terms of employment, which is not provided for in the EA.

Employment Law Part 1

What govern our employment? Is it the Employment Act 1955 (EA) or our written contract that we signed with our employer?

EA is one of the Acts of Parliament that governs the employment law in Malaysia. Amongst others, it stipulates the minimum benefit or requirement of employment in Malaysia.

The EA defines “employees” as those who entered into a contract of service and whose wages does not exceed RM1,500.00 per month or those who are engaged in manual labour, operation or maintenance of mechanically propelled vehicle, supervises the manual workers, work in vessels and domestic servant, regardless of their monthly wages. These are the categories of people that are protected under the EA.

Section 7 and 7A of EA provides that any term in the contract of employment, which is less favourable than the provision in the EA, shall be of no effect and that the provision of the EA shall prevail. On the other hand, if the term of the contract of employment is better off than the provision of the EA, then the terms of the contract shall prevail over the EA. It means that, though those under the abovementioned category is governed by the EA, they are at liberty to enter into a separate contract of employment with their employer and that the employer shall be at liberty to offer them better terms than those provided in the EA.

As for those who are not in those mentioned categories, they are governed by their own contract with their employer.

To be continued...