I just came back to Parliament from the Shah Alam Sessions Court where the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail as expected dropped the attempted murder charge against the Batu Caves 31 after being incarcerated for close to two weeks on the ground that they are “national security” threats.
Of course I welcome the Attorney-General’s change of mind and the withdrawal of the charge of attempted murder of a policeman preferred against the Batu Caves 31 – as I had right from the beginning called on Gani to drop the charges of “attempted murder” against the 31 as well as the manhunt for another 30 on the same charge of attempted murder, as it would precipitate a new crisis of confidence in the administration of justice over selective and malicious prosecution in the abuse of the Attorney-General’s discretionary prosecution powers.
However, I am still very disappointed by Gani’s conduct in the Shah Alam Sessions Court.
Although the charges against five students for causing mischief and illegal assembly were also dropped (and they should never have been charged in the first place), the charges of causing mischief and illegal assembly against 26 remained, with their case adjourned till December 27 for sentencing following their guilty pleas this morning.
The very fact that Gani had to drop the capital charge of attempted murder against the Batu Caves 31, (which also means the abandonment of his intention to charge 30 others with the same capital offence) – which could land the guilty with a sentence of life imprisonment – is proof that the Attorney-General had abused his powers in preferring such capital charges in the first place.
It raises the question as to the real motive of the Attorney-General in abusing his powers in slapping the Batu Caves 31 with such a serious charge when there is no basis or justification whatsoever.
The two-week incarceration of the Batu Caves 31 who were denied bail on the ground of being “national and security threats” remains a blot on the nation’s administration of justice and the tenure of Gani Patail as Attorney-General.
What Gani should have done in the Shah Alam Sessions Court this morning is to withdraw all charges against all the Batu Caves 31, which would still not be full recompense for the injustice he had done to the 31 Malaysians in incarcerating them for a fortnight in prison.
I call on Gani to further reconsider the charges against the remaining 26 and when their case come up on Dec. 27, to withdraw all charges against them.
Just before the Sessions Court convened this morning at about noon, after inordinate delays, word spread that MIC President and Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu would be showing up in court.
However, he did not turn up – probably after he received information that he would be publicly booed by the families of the Batu Caves 31!
I had given notice to the Parliament Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah, to move an emergency motion last Monday (10th December) on the allegation by the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan on Hindraf’s links to terrorists and canvassing for support from terrorist groups.
The motion did not come up in Parliament last Monday as the PAS MP for Kubang Kerian Sallehuddin Ayub had earlier given notice for an emergency motion about electoral abuses – and Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat permitted only one such motion a day.
The first time the alleged terrorist links of Hindraf leaders were alleged in the public domain was in the court proceedings of the Batu Caves 13 and made by the Attorney-General to strengthen his argument to deny bail to the accused.
As Gani could withdraw the serious charge of capital offence of attempted murder against the Batu Caves 31, the veracity of his allegation (and that of the IGP) of Hindraf’s terrorist links is most suspect.
The Attorney-General and Inspector-General of Police should substantiate their allegations of terrorist links against Hindraf leaders or they should withdraw them.

#1 by EARNEST on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:18 am
“….so that hearings will not take place…†EARNEST
Why would or should the courts want to do that?? – Undegrad2
If you know that you are not going to have any customers for the day, will you close shop for the day and go for a holiday?
If the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ lawyers are not coming to Court, why hold any hearing? The judges have no one to listen to.
#2 by dawsheng on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:21 am
Earnest, you have a point but it is very extreme. Are we ready for it yet? and what will be the consequences?
#3 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:24 am
“If the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ lawyers are not coming to Court, why hold any hearing? The judges have no one to listen to” EARNEST
If the lawyers fail to make their scheduled appearances in court, they would be violating the Oath they took when they were called to the Bar.
#4 by sj on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:40 am
Then now the PM can add : The merciful Title
to his resume.
#5 by BoDo Singh on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:51 am
“BoDo Singh came along with a derogatory remark.” Earnest
My remarks derogatory? I thought that was a self-deprecating remark on my part!
“Earnest, stupid as my handle suggests that was days ago and before Kit made his warning.” BoDo Singh
#6 by kwkean on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 2:29 am
The power of wayang kulit! I can confirm that the Batu Caves 31 will put their votes for BN in the next coming election. Not only them but their family members as well. It could be part of the deal to release them, who knows. As the ballot paper contain a serial number, the government can monitor if they had betray them or not. Scary isn’t it?
If they dare to vote for other parties, I’m sure they will be sent to jail or worst of all, ISA. You might think that I’m talking crap here but those who voted before and those working in the government civil departments know what I mean especially the serial number!
Even such deal doesn’t exist, they still have to vote for BN. No way they would cause anymore troubles after this event. They have family to take care and they are not rich like our YB LKT. They cannot afford to be charge again else no one will take care their family. A 2 way win win situation for our AAB!
Geng or not his wayang kulit show?? Not only he will gain more votes from the Batu Caves 31 and their family members but also from those who feel AAB is kind enough to let them go. Puik! Disgusting tactic yet some aunties and uncles will still fall for it!!
#7 by EARNEST on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 2:34 am
If the lawyers fail to make their scheduled appearances in court, they would be violating the Oath they took when they were called to the Bar. –Undegrad2
Imho, the lawyers’ oath to uphold justice and to protect the interest of clients, is just as important as their scheduled appearance, which can be postponed to another date, which must be done because business will be closed on the scheduled date, no customers are coming.
Isn’t there flexibility in rescheduling hearing dates, especially when the courts have no other choice ? Of course ample notice must be given by coordinators of such planned boycott to allow rescheduling of hearings.
#8 by EARNEST on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 2:41 am
BoDo Singh,
Sorry, if I had misread your message.
If I am not mistaken, the statue of limitation for redress is 6 years, not one day.
#9 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 2:41 am
“…their scheduled appearance, which can be postponed to another date…” EARNEST
Back to my original question which is “why should the courts want to do that?”
#10 by EARNEST on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 2:44 am
Please see above.
#11 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:10 am
It is not about ample opportunity! Why should the courts want to do that i.e. postpone hearings?
#12 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:17 am
You gloss over what I said i.e. that lawyers are not just representatives of their clients but they are officers of the court. Why should the courts i.e. judges and members of the Bench and judicial officers want to do that?
#13 by EARNEST on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:25 am
Because they have no choice. All lawyers in unison are not attending courts. All lawyers in unison are telling the judges who will tell the fixing clerks that on boycott day/s, no lawyers are coming to Court. That day or those days will have to be vacated.
#14 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:48 am
And if sittings continue? And if a lawyer appears for the hearing as scheduled, and you don’t? And your client’s case is then struck off or worse judgment is awarded to the other party?
Not to mention that in many cases it has taken years to reach to that point and the fact that lawyers may not be able to re-instate their case. Not to mention that clients would like their cases settled expeditiously and clients are paying you enormous sums of money in major cases, to act for them in their interest and not in your interest.
This is assuming that you want to break your oath as an attorney and office of the court.
It is not going to happen.
#15 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:49 am
It is not a simple case of you telling the judges what to do!
#16 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 8:14 am
I said this from the start that this was a mistake politically for the PM. I thought he was not smart enough to stop this train wreck from getting worst but it turned out he was not completely dumb.
But this event reveal something about this PM. The international press has always said this PM is trying to do a balancing act of different groups.
The problem is this ‘balancing act’ will ultimately lead us to no change or nowhere. We can tell from recent RCI member and terms of reference as well as the SCC that its another example of going nowhere and maintaining the status quo while his game playing actually cause damage in the long term.
This fake 31 ‘attempted murder’ charge for example sets a new precedent. Firstly it erodes confidence in the AG office. Sooner or later someone is going to sue the AG office. Secondly, it sets a new benchmark for political interference in police, the AG office and the courts. I would not be surprise if the PM office will now be inundated with cases for appeals for everything and the most ridiculous. We are truly moving to a ‘selected Sultanate’ system.
All this erodes the values of our institutions of which gives ample opportunity for those in power to abuse it. Those people that screens for the PM is in even better position to benefit from what is going on.
This PM is a civil servant to the core and is skilled in not putting his ass on the line for anything. The ones that pay for this lack of leadership and vision is ordinary Malaysians today but much more so in the future.
#17 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 8:33 am
“Sooner or later someone is going to sue the AG office.” BigJoe
The victims can sue the Attorney General for prosecutorial misconduct. There is some evidence.
#18 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 9:42 am
the Star (18.12.07) is on full gear to spin again – be grateful and thankful to our mighty, charitable, benevolent, sensitive, caring leader:
The charge of attempted murder against 31 people arrested at an illegal gathering at the Sri Subramaniyar Temple in Batu Caves last month has been dropped.
MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu has thanked Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail for dropping the attempted murder charge against 31 people who were involved in the Hindraf illegal demonstration on Nov 25.
Support me and I will not disappoint you, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The Government will study the right mechanism to further improve efforts to help non-Muslim communities, said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Yup, the general election will be held soon.
#19 by DAPHNE on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 11:05 am
EARNEST never suggested telling the judges what to do.
Nazri had said that there was no crisis in the Judiciary, that people still have confidence in the Judiciary because people are still coming to Courts. This is not true because people have no other choice at the moment.
The Malaysian Bar has to do something to show Nazri and the Judiciary that people’s confidence in the Judiciary is in fact zilch.
Your concerns about the aftermath of a boycott is understandable but not unsurmountable. The most important thing is that it must be a concerted effort. Remember, united we stand, divided we fall.
If clients are penalized just to sabotage the legal profession’s boycott, how about filing a class action suit against the Malaysian Judiciary in an appropriate International Court? It may be beyond my legal knowledge to suggest a foolproof solution or contingency plan should innocent clients be penalized, which is against natural justice. The contributions of the best legal minds in the country may be helpful.
#20 by Godamn Singh on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 12:47 pm
I’m sorry but I have to undo my turban to scratch and scratch my head, and I still don’t understand why some people feel the need to talk to their own shadows!
#21 by DarkHorse on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:19 pm
Somebody just doesn’t get it!
#22 by Count Dracula on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:34 pm
You mean talking to his own shadow?
#23 by shaolin on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:19 pm
The Government released 31 Hindraf members Not
becoz they wanted to but it is becoz from the 14 NGOs
and world critics over their wrongful arrest by the
government!!
The arrest of lawyers from Bar Council during The Human
Right Day will have a better say that ‘The street protest
is Not our Culture…but for the Westerners’, says the
Malaysia Government…!!
Don’t you think this statement has since become a
laughing stalk to foreigners and people from all over the
world…!!
It simply reflects the government’s weakness and inability
to tackle problems!!
#24 by DAPHNE on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 3:47 pm
DarkHorse & Count Dracula,
Come on, Speak up! Show your mettle! The world is watching! Don’t just pull your ears and indulge in soliloquy!
You can do better than that!
#25 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 9:49 pm
You don’t want to do that daphne aka earnest! Can we move on?
A political blog depends for its strength, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, on the diversity of opinions. This blog would be the poorer without opinions for example that run counter to those of YB Kit.
When you put forward your argument be prepared to see counter arguments expressed by other posters. Sometimes it is not about opinion on the facts. Sometimes it is just you not getting the facts correct. The logical thing to do then is to correct yourself and move on. That applies to all of us. We are not infallible.
#26 by Godamn Singh on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 1:37 am
don’t waste your time lah undergrad! the digital footprints are so obvious.
#27 by Colonel on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 1:54 am
Who is daphne aka earnest? Is he some cross dresser?
#28 by EARNEST on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 2:09 am
Do not AssUMe that I am daphne.
Buddha said do not be too sure of yourself because you could be wrong.
Tell me where do I get my facts wrong.
Sometimes, in attempting to write something that run counter to those of YB Lim’s, I noticed that you had compromised your intellectual integriry.
I am not saying that you can not oppose YB Lim. I would like to suggest that one should refrain from opposing for the sake of opposing in order to enrich the blog and/or just to show that one has independence of thoughts.
You could be doing the issue under discussion a disservice by diluting the Opposition’s efforts in condemning strongly yet civilly the abuse of, for example, the ISA powers by Powers-that-be.
Do not trivialize abuse of ISA, with its power of indefinite detention without trial. We should not compromise with it under any circumstances.
I can not agree with your argument that the Hindraf 5 deserved to be detained under the ISA.
Your friends or loved ones may one day be ISA victims too even though you yourself may not be a potential candidate, with your propensity to invariably oppose YB Lim’s truly independent and courageous views against BN’s excesses.
#29 by Godamn Singh on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 3:22 am
Please, if you want to talk cock go here http://www.talkingcock.com/
#30 by Count Dracula on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 3:30 am
A word of advice to daphne aka earnie or whatever:
Just give your 2-cents and stop insulting your own intelligence!
#31 by DiaperHead on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 3:50 am
“Do not trivialize abuse of ISA…” EARNEST
How does one abuse the Internal Security Act (ISA)?? Isn’t the ISA an abuse of due process i.e. detaining someone without charge, without trial and access to counsel?? So how does one abuse the abuse???
Then how does one trivialize the abuse of the abuse? Trivialize the abuse or exacerbate the abuse? Man, I don’t get it. Do you guys get it??
#32 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 6:09 am
I certainly don’t.
#33 by laifoong on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 8:08 am
What did I tell you? You guys don’t listen and you’re all wasting your time.
#34 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 9:44 am
Naaahh…! Let Earnest speak.
He says “If ….you are not going to have any customers for the day, will you close shop for the day and go for a holiday?” He compares our courts to shops and law like any other business.
That is his view of our justice system.
Judges could take the day off because lawyers absent themselves from court and because there’s nothing for the judges to listen to. Judges and lawyers could come together and “act in unison” and “with one voice” because the purpose is an honorable one i.e. to bring back independence to the judiciary. That after all is democracy.
Then he asked “Where did he get the facts wrong”.
#35 by DAPHNE on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 2:28 pm
EARNEST, Jesus said “Forgive them for they know not what they do”
Calling Commendable limkamput (new title courtesy of YB lim)… EARNEST besieged… Reinforcement required.
#36 by DiaperHead on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 7:09 pm
“Do not trivialize abuse of ISA…†EARNEST
How does one abuse the Internal Security Act (ISA)?? Isn’t the ISA an abuse of due process i.e. detaining someone without charge, without trial and access to counsel?? So how does one abuse the abuse???
Then how does one trivialize the abuse of the abuse? Trivialize the abuse or exacerbate the abuse? Man, I don’t get it. Do you guys get it??
#37 by limkamput on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 9:02 pm
Daphne says: Calling Commendable limkamput (new title courtesy of YB lim)… EARNEST besieged… Reinforcement required
Earnest, Daphne
Sorry I was away due to work. I am not proud that Sdr Kit commended me not because I don’t respect him. I don’t deserve it.
I read the debate above and my advice is don’t fall into the trap as I did earlier. I think each of us tend to be egoistic behind the key board because we are to some extent shielded from others. Initially, I was too impatient with views and ideas expressed by others. However, I still believe that we have to right to comment on the views expressed by others so long as we put it more diplomatically. I was blunt and confrontational because I thought that was more effective in getting my ideas across. I have learned the bitter lesson. I will, however, follow undergrad2 advice to focus on the writing and not the writers. I hope he too will follow his own counsel.
If we stay here long enough, I think others will eventually take notice of who we are and what we stand for. The more we write, the more we reveal ourselves. Let others judge what each of us are made of. Please don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to be a nice guy and I have openly confessed my transgression.
Most of us come here and take on the moral high road but the reality within each of us is very different. The main difference, Earnest and Daphne, is whether we know or not that each of us is rotten inside. Since you quoted a verse from the scripture, may be you should know story of the Pharisee and the tax collector when each of them prayed to God, the Father.
#38 by limkamput on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 9:06 pm
..let others judge what each of us is made of.
#39 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 9:24 pm
“I will, however, follow undergrad2 advice to focus on the writing and not the writers.”
Well said, limkamput! It is time to move on, don’t you think?
Your pal Earnest must get over it, heed YB Kit’s advice always and act for the common good instead of the narrow self-interest of the few.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
As I am a Christian I should say “Merry X’mas” though by doing so I’d be opening myself to criticism for taking an exclusive approach rather than an inclusive one.
#40 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 9:56 pm
Limkamput: “I was blunt and confrontational because I thought that was more effective in getting my ideas across.â€
You’re both right and wrong here.
By all means be blunt though not necessarily confrontational if by being blunt means you’re honest and passionate about your beliefs on the issues. In your case, you were not blunt so much as you were confrontational and abrasive in your approach often focusing on the messenger rather than the message.
In your posting above you used “I†no less than fifteen times. Undergrad uses “I†only once when he could have used it five times! Perhaps the next time you are inclined to use “I†try using “we†instead. That is what is meant by being confrontational. You can be just as effective in putting your point across.
#41 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 10:03 pm
Not to forget that you indulge in ‘name calling’! How is that necessary?
#42 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 10:24 pm
But like undergrad reminds us all it is time to get over it and move on. limkamput was doing well by moving on until Earnest here comes and tries to open old wounds. That he shouldn’t do and should stop doing.
#43 by Colonel on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 11:28 pm
EARNIE aka DAPHNE,
You should follow the example set by limkamput. Oh yes, stop being a cross dresser!
#44 by EARNEST on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 1:22 am
limkamput has mellowed, which is good.
I am not a Christian. I am an agnostic. I have no idea about the “story of the Pharisee and the tax collector when each of them prayed to God, the Father.” Perhaps you can enlighten me, and perhaps others too.
However, here are answers to some questions raised.
“He compares our courts to shops and law like any other business.” — Dark Horse
Dark Horse,
Picture in your mind’s eyes an empty kopitiam boycotted by customers, with the proprietor staring into empty chairs. Next, picture in your mind’s eyes inside the judges’ Chambers, judges throughout the country staring into empty chairs where Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ lawyers were supposed to be sitting, following a boycott of the judiciary. We know that the kopitiam proprietor will close shop for the day. I suppose the judges will do likewise. Just until this stage. Do not go any further into the nature of the work,etc,etc. You are not expected to extrapolate.
I am not equating Court to Shop, law to any other business. I was using an analogy for the immediate effect of a boycott, empty chairs, no customers, no lawyers.
I come across 5 definitions of analogy. I am using the fifth one here.
Analogy – a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
A logical argument by analogy relies upon an inductive inference from the supposition that things are similar in certain known respects to the likelihood that they are also similar in some further unknown respect.
DarkHorse said: “Judges and lawyers could come together and “act in unisonâ€
I never said Judges and lawyers…. Only lawyers. When you quote what somebody said, you need to be accurate, otherwise you could be accused of “putting words into somebody’s mouth” in order to support your argument in a crooked way.
Godamn Singh, Count Dracula, Laifoong,
You are entitled to your own opinions, which may be personal, not objective, and do not warrant answers.
“Then how does one trivialize the abuse of the abuse? Trivialize the abuse or exacerbate the abuse? Man, I don’t get it. Do you guys get it??” — DiaperHead.
You are suggesting the word abuse is redundant? ISA stands for Internal Security Act. Check in any thesaurus, it is not synonymous with abuse. It is legitimate to some, connotes abuse to some.
“narrow self-interest of the few.” — undegrad2
I don’t get this.
Colonel,
Do not AssUMe. Is cross dressing a fetish you indulge in, since you are so obsess with it?
#45 by DiaperHead on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 1:26 am
In the dictionary of our Muslim friends ISA stands for Jesus.
#46 by DiaperHead on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 1:36 am
“limkamput has mellowed, which is good.” EARNIE
Here you’re implying that limkamput used to be less than matured in personality and experience and has now mellowed. He may want to take it up with you.
“I am not a Christian”.
Normally one who is fond of quoting from holy scriptures is religious and in this case since you’re quoting from the Holy Bible, you cannot fault anyone for assuming that you’re Christian but certainly not agnostic.
#47 by limkamput on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 3:06 am
Dear Earnest, I hope I am not causing misunderstanding. I understand your feeling with regard to your current debate and I just hope that others will be magnanimous, liberal and democratic as they claimed. What I was saying was most of us (me included of course) may not really know the rot within us. Please note I am not targeting at you. The scripture says in Luke 18: 10 – 14 “ Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee (religious teacher) and the other a tax collector (tax collectors those days were considered sinful people). The Pharisee stood up and pray about himself, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men – robbers, evildoers, adulterers – or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
‘But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to the heaven (he felt the guilt in him), but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
Jesus said, the tax collector rather than the Pharisee went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
I know it is difficult because sometimes people just go on and on as if wanting to test you and cause you to loose your patience again. I do not want to respond again not because I have nothing to respond. I am trying very hard to follow my own counsel and I hope others who write or said so eloquently on what is right and what is wrong should do likewise. Please don’t misunderstand me again; I am not talking about you. Let it go and just concentrate on the issues at hand. By all means debate and argue with them if you feel strongly what they said is not right or illogical. Happy Holiday.
#48 by limkamput on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 3:12 am
Earnest, to reiterate, what I said was we are all guilty but some know they are guilty, some don’t.
#49 by limkamput on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 3:19 am
To Undergrad2,
Blessed Christmas to you too!
#50 by laifoong on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 3:28 am
“limkamput has mellowed, which is good.†earnest
he was not mellowed before and was bad??? dunno never read his comments.