Frens! Check out the #CelcomBiz Promo for the Celcom BB Bold 9780 and BB Torch 9800 today! Promo2! :)

Frens! Check out the #CelcomBiz Promo for the Celcom BB Bold 9780 and BB Torch 9800 today! Promo2! :)

File 46: Aminul Rasyid Amzah...

I was not at the scene of the incident, so I could not tell the truth behind the incident. However, I would like to give my personal opinion on the manner in which the police did the shooting. This is not the first time the police shot suspects to death. I have nothing against the police. I know they have a huge responsibility to ensure that Malaysians live peacefully. But not everything can be settled through shooting, especially so when the shooting caused death to the suspects.

In this particular incident, the reason of the police shooting is questionable. I don’t think that the police needs to fire multiple shots in the first place. No offense, the boy was wrong for driving without a valid license and sneaked out from his house in the middle of the night without his parents permission. But can that be a justification for the shooting? Moreover, if I were in his shoes, maybe I would do the same. Just imagine, being chased by several people in motorcycles and accidentally knocked down a car. Then, suddenly being chased by police patrol cars. Any Tom, Dick and Harry aged 15 would probably becomes panic in such situation.

The police has reasonable suspicion to arrest him. Section 24 of the Police Act provides that if any police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vehicle is being used in the commission of any offence, he may stop and detain the person [Section 24(1)(b)]. Section 24(3) of the same Act further adds that if the person fails to obey any reasonable signal of the police officer to stop the vehicle, the person is guilty for an offence and can be arrested without a warrant.

So, in my opinion, when the car had accidentally being stopped, the police should first tell the boy to surrender. In some newspapers, they reported that the police shot the boy when he tried to run over the police while reversing the car. My personal opinion is that the statement is quite absurd. By looking at the photo of the condition of the car above, it is impossible for the car to go forward. So, logically, the police will go to the side of the car [and not to the back of the car] if they wanted to check the condition of the boy.

And some newspaper reported that the police found a long parang in the car. Is it just a cover up to justify the shooting? Nobody will ever know…

Nevertheless, the mother told another fact to the reporters. The boy had already dead before it went over the side of the road and hit a house. This means that while asking the car to stop, the police had already shot the boy to death. I think this is intolerable. The police should not start firing the car if he knows that by shooting it, he may caused death to the persons inside the car.

According to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life [Article 9]. Article 10 further adds that the officials shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning on their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed unless by doing so, it will unduly places the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons.

The point here is, the use of firearms can only be justified if it is strictly unavoidable. Even in criminal law, the defence of self-defence can only be invoked if he is in imminent danger, with no other means to save himself from that danger. In an English case, Rashford (2005) AER 192, the question in that case is whether the defendant feared that he was in immediate danger from which he had no other means of escape, and if the violence he used was no more than appeared necessary to preserve his own life or protect himself from serious injury, he would be entitled to rely on self-defence. The keyword here, besides imminent danger, is the proportionate of the attack.

Thus, has the police fired a warning shot [normally towards the sky] before he fired the shot to the boy’s car and subsequently the boy? Next, did the boy fired back [or use other means] to attack the police and put the police in imminent danger?

The police has many powers in order to prevent crimes but that does not includes shooting a suspect to death. According to Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. This means that a person should be considered innocent until it can be proved that he is guilty. If a person is accused of a crime, he should always has the right to defend himself. Nobody has the right to condemn him and punish him for something he has not done.

So, is there any prove to show that the boy is guilty? Even under Article 11 of the UDHR, he is innocent until he is proven guilty. The police must also remember that a suspect is not necessarily guilty. The word suspect itself shows that the suspect is not yet guilty but just suspected that he may commit a crime. May, not did.

And when firing shots to suspect, I suggest that the police should aim at body parts which may prevent him from running away. For example, the police may shot the suspect’s leg. Always avoid a fatal shot. A fatal shot will cause death to the suspect. If the suspect is dead, how can the police tender evidence to show that he is guilty? How can the investigation continue when the suspect himself is dead?

File 45 : I want to be a domestic helper [a.k.a maid] too!!!

Sometimes, people who give ideas never think of the pros and cons of their ideas. Once, there was an idea, to cap the minimum wages for domestic helper at RM 600 a month. Now, there is an idea to increase that RM 600 to RM 800 per month. We are talking big money here, man! RM 800!

I think, ideas that come nowadays have become more and more absurd. RM 800 nett! Wow! I think I want to be a domestic helper too. Hahaha...

It's not that I am jealous with that high salary or unable to give that much of money. No... I understand that sometimes, there are cases where the employer treats their domestic helper like slave. The problem is, I don't think that all domestic helpers are eligible to be paid RM 800 per month.

Just bear in mind, RM 800 is not a small amount of money. RM 800 per month nett. Which includes free meals everyday, free bills, free everything. So, when there are domestic helpers who do not know how to do their work, should they be paid RM 800 too?

There are domestic helpers, like from Indonesia, who don't even finish their SMA [Sekolah Menengah Atas or Upper Secondary School]. They don't know how to read, how to write. Sometimes, there are cases where the domestic helpers were not given extensive courses which resulted in their inabilities to do certain jobs. They don't know how to iron clothes, how to operate the washing machines...

If they don't even know how to do their basic works properly, is RM 800 per month acceptable?

Photo is my property.

File 44 : Absurd!

I understood that public transports, especially buses and taxis, were given green light by the government to increase their fares. This is due to the fact that it was long ago that the fares were reviewed. However, if the fares are absurd, can it be tolerated? [This post made special reference to Rapid KL buses' fares].

Before the new fare structure is implemented, the fare for Bas Utama daily pass was RM 2 per day. E.g, from Section 2 Shah Alam to KL = RM 2. It was RM 1 per day for Bas Tempatan. E.g, from Section 8 Shah Alam to Section 28 Shah Alam, the fare was only RM 1 for the whole day.

However, after the implementation of the new fare structure, the fare for Bas Utama is according to zones, which means that now, the bus fare for Section 2 Shah Alam - KL route is RM 3 for a one way trip. So, it's now RM 6 including a return ticket. I don't mind with Bas Utama. What pissed me off a lot is the fare for Bas Tempatan.

With the new structure, the fare for Bas Tempatan is still RM 1. But it's not a daily pass anymore. Instead, it's RM 1 for a one way trip. So, to illustrate this, if a passenger is going to take a bus from Section 8 Shah Alam to Section 28 [which means, he has to take 3 buses], he has to pay RM 3. So, it's so absurd that the passenger needs to pay the same fare as if he is going to KL!

The government always give us statistics that the users of public transports in Malaysia are very few. What they don't realize is that, the users are actually turning away from public transports as they need to fork out A LOT of money for a VERY BAD service...

Photo is The Digital Awakening's property.

File 43 : What a provocation!

What a provocation!

What had happened at Bangunan SAAS last Friday shocked me like hell. Unbelievable that thing like this happened 52 years after Merdeka. I am ashamed and angry over what had happened especially coz' it happened at my hometown, Shah Alam. It's true that all religions have right to build their worship places in Malaysia. This is enshrined in Article 11(3)(b) of our Federal Constitution which states that every religious groups have their right to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes. However, when there is a dissatisfaction by the people in Section 23, the state government should explain to them the rational behind the relocation. If this had been done, maybe such incident will not occurred.

Nevertheless, the protesters should be condemned and their act was a stupid provocative act, done by people who do not understand the multiracial concept that we embraced. We all know, every Malaysians know, and should know, that cow is a sacred animal in Hinduism. Since we were kids, we were told and exposed to the believes and cultures of others, and we all know how sacred a cow is to Hindus. So, it was so provocative when they protested by bringing a dead cow's head in front of Bangunan SAAS. Even while eating, we often tell our Hindu friends that this food contains beef, so they cannot eat it. But when it comes to emotions, all the respects gone. Why?!

So, action must be taken by the authorities before it's too late. We have been independence for half a century and this is not the way it should be. Respect each other and live harmoniously together. We don't want a repeat of May 13 1969, do we? We should be glad that we live in Malaysia, a golden land for everyone. Don't let a stupid act of a small group of people change this golden land to a dumping site...

Photo property of: Malaysiakini.

File 42 : Beer in Selangor...

Recently, the issue of beer selling in Selangor was hotly debated. We heard many opinions either from the mainstream medias or the alternative medias. Its ok. Malaysia is a democratic country and we upheld freedom of speech, right?

Well, I want to give a neutral view over this matter. An honest opinion from the eyes and thinking of a student who's neutral, partyless, and apolitical. Firstly, I totally disagreed with EXCO Hal Ehwal Agama Islam, Datuk Hassan Ali. And secondly, I agreed with MB Khalid's approach - self-regulatory.

Datuk Hassan Ali had said that there will be a total prohibition on beer selling at Muslim-majority areas in Shah Alam, comprising of Section 1 to 24.When asked, how if a non-Muslim wants to drink, he answered that the person has to go to any section where there is no ban on beer selling, such as Section 25. It's true, his intention is noble i.e to prevent Muslim youths from abusing alcohol. However, he didn't realized that his decision directly affect the non-Muslims while we know as a matter of fact that Syariah law does not apply to non-Muslims. When there is a total prohibition, wouldn't it directly affect the non-Muslims?

I am not against the idea of controlling the sale of alcoholic beverages. But when there is a total prohibition, many things can happen. TheSun daily had included a small column recently, highlighting the impact of prohibiton on beer selling in the USA. When there was a total ban in the USA, the selling of alcoholic beverages were done underground and controlled by the mafia. It had became an underground industry where gangsters were fighting to control the selling of such drinks at a particular territory. Just as drugs. When drugs selling is ban, people get it underground. Black market, my friends...

That's why I agreed with MB's approach. Self regulatory is the way it should be. Sellers and buyers should have a sense of responsibility. That way, it will become less controversial and if the guideline is followed properly, alcohol abuse will be lesser.


Photo is theSun's property.

File 41 : Happy fasting!

It's a bit late, and it's a long time since I last updated this blog. But still, Happy fasting to all Muslims especially those in Malaysia!

Salam Ramadhan al-Mubarak!

File 40 : What's the difference between 5+2 and 2+5?

What is the difference between 5 plus 2 and 2 plus 5? As far as mathematics is concern, 5+2=7 and 2+5=7 too. The difference that may exist is the way a particular person get the answer. Some may use the calculator, some may use the 'sempoa' while some just count in mind [congak]. But the outcome is still the same, 7.

Now, compare to this situation. A leader of a state found guilty for money politics in a party [or some called it as breached of party ethics, where in my opinion, whatever names you called it, it is still of the same nature] was barred from contesting the deputy president post of that party. On the other hand, a young leader who found guilty for the same offence just get away with a warning. The reason given was that the young leader's offence was different in the way the offence took place.

Applying the mathematics formula given above, 5+2 is the the offence. 2+5 is also the offence. As in Mathematics, the way/ the nature the offence took place is different. And as 5+2=7 and 2+5=7, still the outcome of the offence is money politics. So, why the different in the punishment?

I try not to be biased. I have no qualms whatsoever with any political party in this country. But is it just and is it a good sign when a person tainted with money politics easily get away with it and became a youth leader. Didn't they had enough from us last year?

Or do they want more signs from us?

File 39: Anarchy

an⋅ar⋅chy - (ān'ər-kē)

–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

anarchy. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 08, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

-----

Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah was quoted as saying, "A lawless system breeds a lawless culture" [NST, 28th February 2009 - Frontpage]. I couldn't agree more with his views. He is absolutely right. Laws are the fundamentals of peace. There will be no peace without laws. Subsequently, without peace, a nation will collapse. Literally.

I still remember when I was a kid, there was a comic column in a comic known as KAWAN. The name of the column was, 'Kalaulah... [If...]'. Once, the issue for the column was 'Kalaulah tak ada undang-undang..[If law does not exist...]'. There was this one mother in an emergency. She went to the public phones only to find out that all the phones had been vandalised. Another strip in the column showed this one tough guy, loitering around the street with a baseball bat in his hand, extorting money from the people. Two policemen saw him but they couldn't do more. Because law did not governed the people.

The situation in Malaysia currently is towards the situation in the comic. To a state known as anarchy. A state where there are no laws to govern the people. Even if there is law, the people do not obey it.

Just look at the situation in school now; bully, gangsterism, they are getting from bad to worse. They put the course of law in their own hands. They do not resort to the authorities to lodge a report whatsoever. Are we going to let the authorities get their salaries paid for nothing? Oya just settled their problem and now, a new problem arised in Tok Janggut. What is happening to the young generations?

Politis; a lot more probelems. They think they are powerful as they are the law makers and they are well-versed with the law [do they?]. As if law is above them all. They said that court's judgment can be disobeyed as the judgment made was a bad judgment. Then, what is the purpose of having a justice system? What is the purpose of the courts in the first place. It is admitted that sometimes, courts do made decisions which were bad in law. But they can appeal to it.

In short, it is disheartening to see the situation today. The situation shows that justice and law is decreasing in value. Everybody wants to interprate law by themselves.

Headache~...

Are we moving towards the state of anarchy??? Hopefully not!

P/s: If this country does not follow the rule of law, how am I suppose to work later? =p No one is above the law!

File 38 : Pro - Aspirasi & Pro - Mahasiswa...

[Photo courtesy of: aniswahab.blogspot.com and pro-am-unitar.blogspot.com]

These two groups are famous in UM, UPM, UIAM, and some other IPTAs [public universities] in Malaysia. Studying in UiTM, these two groups are rarely being heard of. From my readings, what I know is that Pro-Aspirasi is a group linked or associated with the university administrators thus they are said to be pro-government. On the other hand, Pro-Mahasiswa, albeit always associated with the opposition, is said to be the group fighting for the students.

It does not matter whether the perception is true or not. In my opinion, the existance of these two groups as well as other groups [such as the PPIM in UIAM] during campus election is something healthy. Yes, you heard it. H-E-A-L-T-H-Y...

Maybe some will disagree and they will claim that the existence of such groups will divide the unity among the students. But to have all these groups will let the students know that this is the reality that they will face in real politics.

Universities are preparation centres, to prepare the graduates before they storm into the real world full of challenges. And in the real world, there is the government and the opposition. That is the ideology of democracy. A government without an opposition will not and never be a democratic country as powers are concentrated to a party per se. The concept of a government with an opposition is to ensure that there is check and balance in the administration. This check and balance doctrine is to prevent concentration of power as to establish a CAT government [as in Penang's Clean, Accountable, and Transparent]. - [[ I borrow your tagline Mr. Lim Guan Eng... =) ]]

In UiTM, campus election is just a mere competition of certain individuals to win two chairs allocated to each faculties. There is no thrill in the election. No ideology to be promulgated, no teams, no Pro-Aspirasi, no Pro-Mahasiswa, no public speaking, no speakers' corner. Even the face of the candidates were hard to be seen during campaign period. It's the individual for himself [and with the help of certain close friends from that particular batch whose candidates are from]. Nothing more.

Maybe this situation need to be changed. Will Pro-Mahasiswa exist in UiTM one day? Will UiTM students brave enough to say that the university belongs to the students, not the Vice-Chancellor's? Only time can change this. Let us just wait and see...