A note, a statement and many questions

How are you gonna justify this? (Pic taken from online)

I have reproduced here the statement made by the Attorney General and published in The Star today. I have also asked certain questions which i hope - but doubt - will be answered satisfactorily.

IN Teoh Beng Hock’s death inquiry today, the officers representing the Public Prosecutor, in assisting the said inquiry, intended to put in a note found in the deceased’s sling bag which contains an indication that may throw some light regarding his death.

However, the existence of the note was disputed on the grounds of delay in disclosure, failure to furnish a copy of the said note to the counsel representing the deceased’s family and suppression of evidence by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers vehemently denies any suppression of evidence (and) instead was equally startled when the discovery of the note was made known and thereafter caused further investigation to be carried out.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers was informed of the discovery of the note by the investigating officer, ASP Ahmad Nazri bin Zainal, on Oct 7, 2009, some two over months after Teoh Beng Hock’s death.

So at their own admission, they knew of this note for around 10 months (around 300 plus days) but only decide to reveal it NOW!!!! Why??????

According to the investigating officer, it was not found when he first searched the deceased’s sling bag after the incident.

Not found???? So how did it mysteriously and miraculously appear then? Why should we even bother about it?

The note was immediately translated and there was sufficient cause to send it to be analysed by a document examiner of the Chemistry Department.

The said note was sent on Oct 9, 2009 and subsequently on Oct 20, 2009.

The document examiner prepared his reports and they were considered by the Attorney-General himself where the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, was not convinced of the authenticity of the note due to insufficient samples to verify the handwritings, in particular the Chinese characters.

So if he was not convinced then, why is he trying to tender it now?

In addition, the note was said to be discovered some two over months after the death and that this would raise suspicion over its authenticity and discovery.

I FULLY agree with this statement! Very, very suspicious. So again, why??????

Having considered these factors, Tan Sri Abdul Gani was of the view that the note should not be tendered until and unless the investigating officer could provide satisfactory explanation as to its discovery.

So by wanting to tender it now, can i conclude that the IO provided a satisfactory explanation? Still, if he did, then why wait til now???? Did it take him SO LONG to come up with an explanation? More suspicious...

As regards the note, the Attorney-General’s Chambers was earlier briefed by the investigating officer that he conducted a thorough search after being advised by the psychiatric (sic) that ordinarily there would be a note left in a suicide case.

However, recently, the investigating officer owned up by admitting that he did in fact find the note when he searched the sling bag on July 17, 2009 but did not realise the significance of it as there were other documents found and that they were written in both Chinese and Roman characters.

Wait a minute - so he discovered it when he searched the bag? Teoh's body was found on the 16th June 2009. Why was his bag only searched by the IO 1 MONTH LATER??? If this was not the first time he searched the bag, i asked the same question i did earlier - how did the note suddenly appear?????

And the IO did not realise the significance of it????? Why??? The AG's statement said he did not realise it "as there were other documents found". WHAT?????????????? And the IO did not realise it could have been significant because it was "written in both Chinese and Roman characters"?????? So? Is it because he did not understand it? How and why could he have not bothered with it????????

As a result of this, the Attorney-General decided to put the note in and directed the investigating officer to explain this in court to avoid any repercussion in future and let the coroner decide on its weight after considering the explanation by the investigating officer and the document examiner’s report.

Therefore, there is no suppression or withholding of evidence and that the decision for not tendering it earlier was made based on the document examiner’s report as well as the discovery of the note which gave rise to suspicion.

If the decision not to tender it earlier was for those reasons, so WHY is the AG tendering it only NOW?????? What has happened since then????????

The Attorney-General’s Chambers will tender a document as evidence only and until it is satisfied that any shroud of suspicion surrounding it is lifted.

Unfortunately, all this only raises more suspicion.

Jabatan Peguam Negara
9 August 2010

I teach my students every year that it is only in the movies that you see lawyers tendering important letters late in a court case, catching everyone by surprise. From next year onwards, i will have to tell my students this only happens in movies AND in Malaysia.

Malaysia boleh!

A slap on the wrist

Last year, a group of men did something totally disrespectful and utterly disgusting - they brought a cow's head to protest against the relocation of a Hindu temple.

Pic taken from Malaysian insider

To most of us, it would not be so bad. Furthermore, everyone has a right to voice their opinion - but it was the manner they went about doing it. A cow is sacred to Hindus. what they did was surely contemptuous.

Rightly, they were charged under the Sedition Act. Eyzva Ezhar Ramly, 31 was charged under the Section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 for “inciting racial animosity with carrying a cow-head”. Mohd Azmir was also charged under the same act for carrying and stepping on a cow-head with “the intention to create racial tension” (see here).

They both pleaded guilty. Therefore, Azmir admitted that he INTENDED TO CREATE RACIAL TENSION.

When i heard the news, i asked some of my students how much they would sentence these people if they were the judges, bearing in mind the charge involved 'intention' and not a strict liability offence. Most said around 5 years in prison. They were all shocked to hear that Eyzva only got one month while Azmir got off with a fine of around 600 quid!!!!

WHAT??????????????????????????????????????????????

This is a serious offence!!!!! They INTENDED to offend and provoke racial tension. A lot of people were asking if it would have been the same a group of Indians or Chinese were to offend the sensitivities of the Muslims. Do you think they would be let off this lightly. i doubt it.

The learned(?) Judge even had the cheek to say "In a multiracial country, we need to take care of the sensitivity of others" (see here). But then she lets them off lightly? Do you think this will serve as a lesson to them? Yes, it's a lesson that if i want to offend and cause racial tension in Malaysia by provoking the Hindus, i will get off lightly.

This is all the more a mockery of our justice system when one considers that Eyzva has got a criminal record and not a first time offender.

Furthermore the rest of those involved were let off. It was reported as follows:-

Defence counsel Afifuddin Hafifi, in applying to the court to acquit and discharge the four, said: “The culprits (Eyzva Ezhar and Mohd Azmir) have pleaded guilty, hence there is no reason for the prosecution to pursue the case.”

Right!!!! So if 10 people went and murder a family, killing them all, and 3 of them has been found guilty, it is ok to let off the rest. There is 'no reason' to pursue the case. What bullsh*t. if they are guilty of a crime, they should be punished accordingly.

But the judge agreed. It was reported that they were all hugging each other in joy (see here) - celebrating no doubt that in Malaysia, you can get off for certain offences!!!!

Malaysia boleh!

1805

Today, we know from a ministerial reply in Parliament and subsequent cases that, between 2003 and 16th July 2009, there were 1805 deaths in custody. This translates into an average of 3 deaths every 4 days. And if the trend continues, even as you are reading this, another body is probably being sent to the morgue and with formalities dispensed with, it becomes yet another body packed up, wrapped up and buried, never to be seen or mentioned again.

(Excerpt taken from here).

The memorial which was held last Saturday

3 deaths in custody every 4 days!!!!!!

Malaysia boleh!

Jail is the safest place

So what happens if your safety is threatened? If you believe some people are going to abduct you? You have a very good reason for believing that. After all, you have accused their people for torturing you (see here).

So what can you do?

Lodge a police report.

Done that.

Go to the courts to apply for a protection order.

Done that.

The results? The police apparently haven't finished their investigations. the court apparently has no power.

So for N Tharmendran, the only option is for him to to go jail!!!!!! You can read all about it here.

Pic obtained from The Star

Malaysia boleh!

Endorsing racism?

So Malaysia has a racist association (meaning it is legal!!!!) - Perkasa. Everyone know about them - and both government and opposition MPs have been speaking out against them.

Perkasa basically tries to champion the rights of the Malay race. This is blatantly discrimination and even racist!

So it was shocking that when a suggestion to for an association to champion the rights of the Chinese race, the Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin said that the people are free to do so!

“We can have Chinese Perkasa and even Indian Perkasa,” he was quoted to have said!!!! You can read about it here.

Shocking! The DPM allowing people to form racist associations. Surely this is against what the government has been saying all along - 1Malaysia. Why segregate the people further? Are we not all Malaysians? Should not everyone then have equal rights? Why do we need associations to fight for the rights of particular race groups?

In fact, in the article linked above, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has been quoted to say that such a suggestion is “ridiculous,” saying a Chinese Perkasa would only fan racial tension.

He said also that it does not gel with the PM’s 1 Malaysia concept.

Sir, you just endorse something which is ridiculous, will fan racial tension and which does not gel with the PM's view!
No, i din say that - one of your ministers did.

So a minister is contracting the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that the DPM is endorsing something which is ridiculous, will fan racial tension and did not gel with what the PM has said earlier. The funny thing is that i dun think he know wat he did!!!!! He was just criticising the idea without knowing the fact that the DPM endorsed it.

Did he say that what our DPM said is ridiculous and does not gel with what the PM wants?

Malaysia boleh!

Yes means no?

The Bible Society of Malaysia had a shipment of Al-Kitabs (Bibles in the Malay language) held at Port Klang.

On the 17th June 2010, I have been informed that they received a letter from KDN (The Home Ministry) which translated reads as follows:

"This is to inform that after due consideration given to your request, the KDN Putrajaya has made the decision to release the said publication."

However, when they went to KDN Port Klang on the 24th June 2010 to collect the bibles, they were told that the bibles are to be released only to be returned to the exporter. The writer of the letter, Encik Suniranto said that another letter will be issued.

Malaysia boleh!

Why? Well, why not?!

Prof Ramlah Adam from UiTM asked “Why challenge the NEP which was working so well?” You can read about it here.

Well, why not, i ask? After all, isn't the NEP unfair? Isn't it based on principles of discrimination? Doesn't it offend basic human rights principles? I would answer all these in the affirmative - and think that that itself is good enough reason to challenge it.

Furthermore and/or in the alternative, i would like to ask the learned prof what makes her think it is 'working so well'? Is it because it benefits the people of the Malay race and she is from that race? Perhaps she is not in a position to make such a decision then. (Altho some think that altho it attempts to help the Malays, it doesn't in reality. Not for all of them).

Anyways, if it really has been working so well, why do we need to keep it anymore? If it worked so well, it should have achieved its goals long ago.

Malaysia boleh!