Nurul Huda Abdul Gani's Rape and Murder Case - Accused Acquitted of Murder

My posting herein may draw unhappiness and unsatisfactory feeling but I do hope that you read my posting with open mind and do not cloud yourself with emotion feelings.
.
On 16/10/2008, the Federal Court acquitted Mohd Abbas Danus Baksan of murdering a 10-year old girl, Nurul Huda Abdul Gani. The Federal Court’s decision draw mixed feelings and reactions among the people with many quarters are not happy with the decision. To better understand what happened, let me take you to revisit the case.
.
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/nurul_huda_murder_case_acquitted_on_grounds_of_insufficient_evidence.html
.
On 17/1/2004, the whole nation was shocked to learn that a cute 10-year old girl by the name of Hurul Huda Binti Abdul Gani of Gelang Patah Johor was brutally gang raped, sodomised and strangled to death. Police's investigation brought to the arrest of a Security Guard by the name of Mohd Abbas Danus Baksan who, at the time of the alleged crime was manning the security booth of Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s main substation in Kampung Pekajang, Tanjung Kupang, Johor Baru. The heinous crime was said to have been committed by Mohd Abbas on 17/1/2004 between 9.20am and 1.00pm. Police’s investigation also revealed the presence of two (2) other persons who were unnamed. In fact, when Mohd Abbas was first charged in court (for murder), he was charged of committing the offence with two (2) other persons who were unnamed.
.
In this case, Mohd Abbas was charged for rape and murder. In his trial for rape in the Sessions Court, he admitted to committing the offence, thus was sentenced accordingly. However, during his trial for murder at the High Court, he did not admit to committing the offence but putting the blame on two (2) other persons namely Suyaimi and Jojo. While Suyaimi was made a prosecution's witness, Jojo's whereabout could not be established. After hearing 26 witnesses and producing 29 items as evidence during the 21-days trial, the High Court found him guilty for murder, hence he was sentenced to death.
.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/8/28/nation/8775746&sec=nation
.
He filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against his conviction (on murder). In the Court of Appeal, the appellant’s (Mohd Abbas) main argument was that the Judicial Commissioner at the High Court had failed to sufficiently appreciate the prosecution’s evidence and the appellant unsworn statement when arriving at his findings. In particular, there was insufficient appreciation of the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution. The Court of Appeal, in dealing with the issue raised by the Appellant said that the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution was sufficiently corroborated and inference was made against the Appellant. As such, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal and upheld the punishment meted out by the High Court i.e. death sentence. Mohd Abbas lodged an appeal with the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
.
http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/judgment/coa/latest/Crpp%2042%20Mohd%20Abbas%20bin%20Danus%20Baksan%20v%20PP%20%20(J-05-71-04).htm
.
Now, after the High Court and the Court of Appeal found Mohd Abbas guilty for murder, what made the Federal Court in a unanimous decision differed from the two (2) previous Courts?
.
In criminal case, there are two (2) elements that must be proven by the prosecution during the trial i.e. the mens rea and the actus reas. Mens rea means the intention to commit the crime and actus reas means the action, which causes the crime to be committed. If the prosecution is only able to prove only one (1) of the two (2) elements mentioned above, the Court may acquit the accused or punish him/her with a lower punishment. On top of that, the prosecution's burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". "Beyond reasonable doubt" means there shall be no single doubt in the prosecution's case and what the accused need to do is to raise at least one doubt (which is reasonable) to throw out the prosecution's case. There was a joke to illustrate what is “beyond reasonable doubt”?. An accused was charged for murder and knowing very well that he is going to lose his case, after the Court resume the proceedings and before the Judge delivering his decision and sentence, the accused stood up and told the Judge that the victim (that had been murdered) is on the way to the Court room and should arrive shortly. The Judge took the trouble and interestedly waited for the victim to walk in. After waiting for a couple of minutes (and the victim was still not walking into the Court room), the Judge told the accused that he (the accused) was bluffing and the Court was going to deliver its decision. The accused stood up and told the Judge that he had managed to raise a reasonable doubt and therefore, he should be acquitted. The Judge was stunned and the accused explained that if the Judge believed that the prosecution had proven the case "beyond reasonable doubt", the Judge should not believe in what the accused said about the victim coming in to the Court room.
.
Now, in this case, Mohd Abbas was jointly charged for murder with two (2) others who were unnamed. There appeared to be the presence of a third person (which was believed to have been Jojo) in the crime scene when the crime took place. This was further supported by the fact that there was a semen stain on a straw mat at the crime scene which does not belong to Mohd Abbas and Suyaimi. The said semen stain belongs to an unidentified male individual. So, in this case, it is not disputed that there was a third person other than Mohd Abbas and Nurul Huda at the crime scene when the crime took place. The prosecution in proving the case against Mohd Abbas at the High Court was relying on the circumstantial evidence in that: -
.
(a) Mohd Abbas was alone at the guardhouse when the victim’s body was found;
.
(b) The victim’s path to the shop from her house and return journey would have led her past the guardhouse;
.
(c) Mohd Abbas’ demenour when approached by the victim’s family members whereby he claimed that he did not see the victim (when the fact that the victim’s body was lying motionless in the guardhouse’ toilet);
.
(d) Mohd Abbas’ demenour in not allowing the police to enter the TNB main station area; and
.
(e) Though Mohd Abbas claimed that it was Suyaimi and Jojo who murdered the victim, Mohd Abbas was said to have supposedly to help the girl and informed the police of the crime committed by Suyaimi and Jojo as alleged by him, which he failed to do. It only serves to suggest that he killed the victim and was trying to conceal the evidence.
.
Now, to me personally, the circumstantial evidence mentioned above does not form conclusive evidence that Mohd Abbas did murder the victim. All it suggested was that Mohd Abbas was present at the crime scene when the crime took place. Though it was said Mohd Abbas should help the girl and inform the police if at all it was true that it was Suyaimi and Jojo and not him who killed the victim, to me Mohd Abbas would have his own reason for doing so. In this case, he admitted to have raped the victim. As such, it makes sense for him not to cooperate with the police and the victim’s family members (even to the extent that he might try to conceal the evidence) because he had raped the victim. The fact that he was alone at that point of time would added to his fear, as he could be charged for murder too, a crime he claimed that he did not do. So, with due respect, I beg to differ with the argument that Mohd Abbas’ uncooperative demanour can only suggest that he killed the victim, a crime he denied of committing, as it can also suggest that he raped the victim, a crime which he admitted at the Sessions Court.
.
So, in this case, the Federal Court was of the opinion that the presence of a third person, which have been proven but that third person’s whereabout could not be established only serves as a doubt in the prosecution’s case. This is because, there was no direct evidence to prove that Mohd Abbas killed the victim (as what the prosecution had was only circumstantial evidence) and that the presence of the third person could also suggest that there was always a possibility that the victim was murdered by that third person. So, while Mohd Abbas admitted to have raped the victim, there was just no conclusive evidence to suggest that he killed the victim. So, in that sense, the Federal Court found doubt in the prosecution’s case and as I mentioned above, the defence (Mohd Abbas) just need to create one reasonable doubt to throw out the prosecution’s case and he did.
.
And as I mentioned earlier, the decision by the Federal Court invited mixed reaction from the people. They just could not believe that the criminal involved in heinous crime against a helpless 10-year old girl escaped the gallows. Even the family members of Nurul Huda was shocked to learn that Mohd Abbas is still alive, as they thought that he (Mohd Abbas) had been hanged already.
.
However, I have to tell you this. Law is not about common sense. Law is not about emotion feelings and law is not about logic. Law is governed by the rule of law. What I mean is that when we deal with law, we should not use our emotion while common sense and logic is not all. A simple example, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with a girl aged 15 years 364 days has committed a statutory rape but a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with a girl aged 16 years 1 day is not committing any offence. Reason being because under the law, girls under 16 years of age are minor, hence under the law, they do not have the capability to give their consent but girls of 16 years of age and above are said to be able to give their consent. If we think about it, does that really make sense? In this instance, the two (2) girls’ age was different by three (3) days only but does that really make a different with their capability to give their consent? No right? But the law says it is. To me it does not make sense and is not logic but that is the law. So, in Nurul Huda’s case, while we, the people believe and thought that Mohd Abbas should have been found guilty of murder, the law takes different view and it is because the law does not based on emotion, logic and common sense as we thought it should be. The law looks at the rule of law vis-à-vis evidence surrounding the case.
.
While I agree with the finding of the Federal Court, I am not too sure who killed Nurul Huda. It could have been Mohd Abbas who killed her but the evidence tendered in Court does not suggest so.
.
In the end, it is better to acquit ten (10) guilty persons (as they shall receive their punishment in the hereafter) than to punish an innocent person (as this may cause great injustice).

Get Your Facts Right Before Comment

As reported in The Star on 9/10/2008, Tun Mahathir said “Until March Pak Lah must keep quiet and let Najib run the show. He should not interfere because if Najib appears to be following him or taking his advice, I think the latter will lose support,” he said.

.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/9/nation/2231113&sec=nation

.

And this was what reported in the NST - Umno leaders have come out to strongly criticise Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for telling Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to keep quiet after handing over power to his successor.

.

Thereafter, came comments from ministers who doesn't know head and tail about what Tun Mahathir meant: -

.

Nazri Aziz

.

Dr Mahathir should have followed his own advice. "He is the right person to say this because that is exactly what he did." He said Dr Mahathir did not keep quiet or allow Abdullah to run the country freely after handing over the premiership to him. "He should have followed his own advice instead of creating all the trouble for us."
.

Azalina Othman

.

Dr Mahathir should have followed his own words. Azalina said Dr Mahathir's statement was like adding salt to an open wound. "Tun should not feel that he is always right by giving advice. It is going to weaken the party further," she said, adding that he should instead set a good example to the younger leaders.

.

Ahmad Shaberry

.

Questioned what Dr Mahathir meant by asking Abdullah to keep quiet. He said Dr Mahathir should set an example for Umno leaders.

.

Khaled Nordin

.

Dr Mahathir's statement was unbecoming. He said there was no need for anyone to say anything as both Abdullah and his successor Datuk Seri Najib Razak knew how to conduct themselves after the handover.

.

Hamid Albar

.

He (Hamid Albar) did not see much risk of interference from Abdullah once he stepped down. "The fact is all former prime ministers have got the tendency to comment, so this is a normal thing. What is most important is to make sure there is no interference. "Maybe Dr Mahathir is reminding Pak Lah based on his own personal experience," he said, perhaps alluding to the vocal criticisms by the former prime minister against Abdullah. "His (Abdullah's) decision was made not in a personal interest but in the interest of the nation and party, so I do not think he would interfere (in the government)," Syed Hamid added.

.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/2371188/Article/index_html

.

In The Star report, what Tun meant was until March Najib should be given freedom to run the country while Si Bedol remains as the PM without interference from Si Bedol, so as to give Najib the feel as a PM and for him to get the right momentum to lead the government. Even before Tun steps down, he went on holiday so as to give Si Bedol the opportunity to run the country while Tun was still a PM. I believe that is a normal way of power transition, not only in politics but everywhere. When Tun said until March, it means the handing over process is till ongoing but when the ministers said after handing over, they meant after March, which was exactly not what Tun meant.

.

It is either the ministers who gave the comments did not understand plain and simple English as reported in The Star or they did not do their homework or they are just lazy fat dog who do not really bother to check on the statement by Tun or they only read NST or is it the work of the spin doctor? Read here http://test.chedet.com/che_det/2008/09/snippets-10.html

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

Police Should Assist and Protect Teresa

I found this article disgusting - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/9/focus/2222048&sec=focus.
.
No doubt that it is the police’s duty to protect everybody in this country without having regard to their race, religion, citizenship, sex, etc. But at the same time, people need to be fair to the police.
.
Teresa Kok had condemned the police over the foods that were served to her while under ISA detention recently, which she likened it to the food of dogs. That was an insult, not only to the police but also to those eggs lovers. And now that she is in trouble (of being threatened on her safety), this writer said that the police should assist and protect Teresa instead of asking her to take precautionary measures. How can that be? At one instance, she condemned the police unreasonably and falsely and in another instance, she expects the police to protect her. That does not make any sense at all.
.
It is not fair to simply condemn and insult the police whenever we do not need them and expect them to give us protection whenever we are in trouble.

Ban of Subsidised Fuel on Foreign Vehicles

The government has announced that foreign vehicles are not allowed to buy subsidized petrol within as far as 50 kilometers from the Malaysia’s border with our neighboring country. Read here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/27/nation/21370395&sec=nation.

I applaud such a move and 100% agree that subsidized petrol should only be enjoyed by the local and not the foreigners. Subsidy should be a privilege enjoyed solely by the citizens of Malaysia though there were complaints and major outcry among our traders near the border that such a move could affect their businesses. Read here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/3/focus/21424882&sec=focus. Well, all these while, they (the traders) have benefited from the loose handling of the subsidized petrol and I do not see why they should make noise now. They should not be making profits at the expense of other fellow citizens. I say so because this mechanism is being used by the government to keep the fuel price as low as possible (though it is high), as the government will be able to have better control on the subsidy spent. If foreign vehicles are allowed to buy subsidized fuel, it means that more subsidized fuel is being consumed and the higher the subsidy the government has to bear. On the other hand, by not allowing foreign vehicles to buy subsidized fuel, it means the consumption of the same is lesser and the subsidy spent by the government is lower. At the end of the day, this should be able to help the government to keep the fuel price in Malaysia at a lower rate as compared to our neighboring country.

However, having said that, I wonder why the ban to buy subsidized fuel by foreign vehicles only extended as far as 50km from the border? To me, it should be applicable throughout the nation. The government should go back to the reasoning for having such a rule to ban foreign vehicles to buy subsidized fuel i.e. subsidized fuel is only meant for Malaysians. So, by allowing foreign vehicles to buy subsidized petrol at the stations located more than 50km from the border, for e.g. in KL, it means that subsidized petrol is not really exclusive for the Malaysians.

What I would suggest is that the ban for foreign cars to buy subsidized fuel is applicable throughout the nation and that they (foreign cars) can buy fuel at any station even within the 50km radius from the border but at the market price (without subsidy). This will definitely reduce or perhaps absolve the losses that may be suffered by the petrol station operators and the traders, as the foreign vehicles will just fill up their tanks at any station without the need to go back to their country or drive more than 50km from the border to fill in their tanks. This will not cause any problems or difficulties for the foreign vehicles to enter Malaysia.

Imagine what happen if the foreign vehicles run out of fuel? Most probably they will be stranded somewhere, as they might not be able to go as far as 50km or to go back to their country.

A Clear-Cut Abuse of Power

It was reported in the newspaper about a teacher who was arrested and detained by the police and had to spend one night in the police lock up for “threatening” one of his students that he (the teacher) might pull his (the student) pants down if the student contravened school discipline again. The student’s father found it too harsh for him to accept and had to resort to abuse of power by using his connection with the police force to have the teacher arrested, detained and spent one night in the police lock up for passing a “threat” remarks, which is not an offence or rather not a criminal offence at the first place. It was also reported that the student comes from a well-known family. This is a blatant abuse of power by the father and the police. Whoever in the police force who gave such a stupid instruction to arrest and detain the teacher is answerable for his action and proper disciplinary (for issuing invalid instruction) as well as legal action (for abusing his power) must be taken against him/her.

Read here for full report http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/21/nation/21307389&sec=nation

The teacher is now contemplating of taking legal action against the father and the police. My advice to the teacher is , go ahead!!! You have every right to sue this buggers. They are all sick people around us who thought they can do what they like. Teach these uncivilized people a good lesson. Lodge a police report. Get them investigated. Put them in prison. Let them know that money is not everything. The day where the rich is powerful and the poor is powerless has long gone (but sad to note that there are still people [like these buggers] who live in that era nowadays).

Let us look at whether the so called “threat” by the teacher towards his student is a crime that may have warrant the police to arrest the teacher and put him in a lock up for one night. The closest offence stated in the Penal Code of this nature is Extortion as stipulated in Section 383. Section 383 of the Penal Code provides as follows: -

"Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"

So, in order to prove extortion, the following elements must present: -

(a) Intention
(b) Put others in fear of injury
(c) Induces the person to deliver any property

In the present case, none of the three elements stated above exists and as such, there is no extortion and therefore, what the teacher had said to his student was not a crime. So, on what basis did the police arrest and detain the teacher and made the poor chap to spent one night in the police lock-up? Was it just because the father was someone influential and has connection with the police, the police felt bound by his request or demand to arrest the teacher and put him in the lock up? Is our police force inferior than the boy’s father? Even the PM is not authorized to give such an instruction to the police in that situation, what more the normal citizen, like you and me?

So, with no offence committed, the arrest made by the police was illegal, which caused the detention as “wrongful confinement”.

Section 340 of the Penal Code defines wrongful confinement as: -

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person

As such, in this case the teacher can be said to have been wrongfully confined when he was made to spend one night in the police lock up for not committing any criminal offence, as he was restraint from moving beyond the four walls of the police lock up.

The punishment for wrongful confinement is one year imprisonment or fine of RM2000 or both as stipulated in Section 342 of the same Code.

Apart from that, the wrongful detention also amounts to a violation of freedom of movement as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. Article 9 (2) of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of movement as it provides that: -

Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof. So, by arresting and detaining the teacher for no valid reason, the police can be said to have violated the teacher’s right to freedom of movement for the night that he spent in the lock up

And the best part was that the teacher had to resort to his influential friend to get him released from the lock up. I wonder what type of police administration we are currently having. What has happened suggests that if you are well connected with the police, you are safe, otherwise, those connected with the police can make your life miserable.

The abuse of power in Mlaaysia is miserable. I think it happen everywhere and almost all the time. If you want to read more on abuse of power, you may want to read Tun Dr. Mahathir’s article on lobbying in his own blog at http://www.chedet.com/

KL CID Chief Senior Asst Comm II Ku Chin Wah confirmed the teacher’s arrest and said that police were still investigating. I hope police would do thorough investigation without fear or favour in upholding justice.

Cabinet Didn't Approve of Indelible Ink, said EC Chairman

What a twist now!!! Now, it is a totally new story. It was the cabinet and not the EC who scrapped the idea of using the indelible ink. Read full story here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/17/nation/20080517143340&sec=nation

There can be two (2) possibilities here and few consequences: -

Possibility No. 1 and The Consequence
What the EC Chairman said is true. If that is the case, one peculiar issue here is why was there cabinet's involvement in EC's business. EC should be independent and impartial in discharging its duties. No one political party, not even the government should have any sort of influence over EC. EC should be allowed to discharge its duties without fear or favour. But the question here is, why did the cabinet has to disapprove the use of indelible ink? After all these hanky panky, are we supposed to believe the excuse given i.e. security reason? WHY??? This is absolutely amounting to abuse of power and I believe the ACA, without having to wait for any report should commence the investigation without any due delay. The ACA should get to the bottom of the issue. The allegation by the EC Chairman is very serious (perhaps more serious than Karpal's statement) because it involves the process of formation of the government. As such, I do not see why the ACA should not commence its investigation immediately unless there is also an instruction from the cabinet that no investigation should be carried out. This is very interesting, as I am waiting, what's next.

Possibility No. 2 and The Consequence
The EC Chairman tell lies. If that is the case, then I believe that the EC Chairman should be charge under the infamous Sedition Act. Simply because his statement (if indeed untrue) can cause public to lose confidence in the present government.

So, whatever the possibility is, there is always a consequence. So, let us see the reaction from Pak Lah, or may be Najib (as Pak Lah is good is pushing the responsibility to his deputy) or may be Nazri Aziz because I think this is the best time for him to be a hero to save his Boss or his Boss to be.

Having said that, there is a strong indication from the EC Chairman's statement that there was or were interference from the government. I mean, if we really analyse his statement as a whole and in particular the following: -

He said he was told to take responsibility for agreeing to it...It’s not easy being EC chairperson

I just do not see how we can interpret the above two statements other than serious interference from the government in the business of EC. I think everybody will agree with me. The whole statement quoted above shows that after the Cabinet made the decision (to scrap the use of the ink), the Chairman left with no option but to agree with it and after having been made to agree (may be unwillingly) with the decision, he was told to take responsibility. What an irresponsible cabinet the nation had then. Well, for the EC Chairman, you were made a scapegoat.

Inquiry Report to be Made Public

The Cabinet has, during its weekly meeting today decided that the full report of VK Lingam video clip Inquiry be made public and will be available for sale. Read here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/16/nation/20080516160915&sec=nation

Another good move by the government. I think because this time we have a Law Minister with brain, unlike the one before the present one, who at the initial stage did not even want to consider having the Royal Commission. Let us hope for more better things to happen to the nation. Amin...

Pandikar Amin Quits as Kota Marudu UMNO Chief

Read here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/16/nation/21270851&sec=nation

I supposed it is a good thing to do. In order for him to be impartial in chairing the meeting, he needs to be sort of “independent” and not tide to any political party or any fraction in the parliament. Whatever it is, while it is important for the Speaker to be impartial, it is more important for him to be seen to be impartial.

Let us hope that this is the beginning of more positive and good things to happen. Thumbs up for Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia.

Jailed for Sending Dirty Pic to Friend

Click here to read more http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/16/nation/21267235&sec=nation

What is going on with human being nowadays? Don't we have a lot of other better things to do than taking picture of our own private part? No matter what, whether it was meant for his wife or anybody, that was a crazy thing to do. It can cause more harm than good. Imagine what will happen if he lost his handphone or the wife (if at all, the wife receive it) lost her handphone?

That is why sometimes, problem does not come to us just like that. We cause them to exist in our life.

After all, was it really meant for his wife? Only God knows...

Malaysia better than 76% of Countries, says PM

Malaysia is better than 76% of the countries in the list surveyed for the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index. Read here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/14/nation/20080514162319&sec=nation

This reminds me of one interview with the late Tan Sri Harun Mahmud Hashim, the country’s first ACA Director that I read in the newspaper many years ago. During the interview, Tan Sri Harun was asked to comment on Malaysia’s (achievement) placing in term of corruption rate (which was improving than the previous year) (forgive me. I do not remember the exact placing) as opposed to other countries with higher corruption rate than Malaysia.

He answered the question by asking another question i.e. why do we compare our country’s achievement with the country below us. Why don’t we compare our country’s achievement with the country which had the least corruption rate?

What a beautiful answer!!! Tan Sri was absolutely right in his answer. We will only improve when we associate ourselves with the best. We will be complacent if we associate ourselves with those lower than us. So, I think for Pak Lah, instead of saying that we are better than 76% of countries, he should have said that we are behind 24% of countries.

"Winners Associate Themselves with Winners"

Sultan Has No Jurisdiction on Transfer

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/5/nation/21148253&sec=nation

I wonder if Nazri Aziz got the chick to reply to Karpal's statement which is suported with case authority (I mean now Nazri needs to come out with his case authority to rebut Karpal's statement). Well, after all, he passed a statement to Nizar that the latter does not understand the convention.