It has become the practice for Cabinet Ministers to pre-empt questions which MPs have given notice in the forthcoming parliamentary meeting by giving answers before the questions are actually asked on the dates they are listed.
The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, has proved that he is no exception and is beginning to answer my first question for question time in the 12th Parliament beginning next Wednesday, which asked him “to outline the top ten priority reform measures which his government will implement in the next 12 months to demonstrate that he has heard the voices of the people in the March 8, 2008 ‘political tsunami’”.
This morning, Abdullah announced that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) will be made a full-fledged commission by year-end and will be answerable to Parliament.
He said said this was one of the four key reform initiatives that would be carried out by the government in the move to address the public concerns on corruption in the country.
The commission’s workforce would be increased to 5,000 officers over a period of five years and the government would also introduce legislation to provide a comprehensive protection for whistle blowers and witnesess in corruption cases.
Furthermore, the government would also take immediate steps to improve the public procurement process through measures targeted at addressing specific problems in the system.
Last Thursday, Abdullah announced measures towards judicial reforms, viz:
• Ex-gratia payment for “the pain and loss” suffered by the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and their families, Tun Salleh Abas, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh and Datuk George Seah in the 1988 Judicial Crisis.
• A Judicial Appointments Commission;
• Review of the judiciary’s terms of service and remuneration to ensure that the Bench can attract and retain the very best of the nation’s talent.
As the “proof of the pudding is in the eating”, more details are needed before an informed judgment can be made of the reform measures concerned.
Although belated, reform measures to restore public confidence in the efficacy, efficiency, independence, impartiality and credibility of national institutions whether judiciary or the anti-corruption agency are welcome as they have been long-awaited by the people.
Yesterday, I had told some reporters that I was astonished at the Prime Minister’s confirmation that he was studying a proposal by the ACA for it to become more independent.
This was clearly putting the cart before the horse as it is the Prime Minister and Cabinet who should take the policy decision that they have heard the voices of the people in the March 8 “political tsunami” and want an anti-corruption agency which is completely independent of the government, answerable only to Parliament , followed by directives to the various agencies such as the ACA and the Attorney-General’s Chambers to draft the necessary legislation based on best international practices like the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to implement such a policy decision.
The government’s failure in the fight against corruption in the past four years, highlighted by the ACA’s inability to net a single one of the 18 “sharks” targetted at the beginning of the Abdullah premiership and the six-point plunge in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index rankings from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 43 last year, is an undeniable and indisputable fact.
I am glad that 24 hours after my comment, the Prime Minister has committed himself to a policy position on an independent anti-corruption agency.
Malaysians will not want a new anti-corruption commission which purports to be independent in name only but not in fact in spearheading the fight against corruption to restore integrity in the nation’s public life – becoming a second Suhakam which is tasked to be an independent body to protect and promote human rights but is completely unable to do so without the necessary powers and wherewithal to carry out such a human rights mandate.
Furthermore, is Abdullah prepared to fully respond to the March 8 “political tsunami” and initiate far-reaching national reforms including the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) by tabling such a bill in the first meeting of Parliament and to free the Malaysian mass media from the shackles of the Printing Presses and Publications Act?
#1 by undergrad2 on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 6:33 pm
“I am glad that 24 hours after my comment, the Prime Minister has committed himself to a policy position on an independent anti-corruption agency.” KIT
YB Kit,
Respectfully, now is not the time to step back and enjoy the scenery, breathe the fresh air and smell the coffee – though no one can dispute that you have worked hard to plough the land and sow the seeds. It will be premature until you see the fruits of the harvest – and that is still a long way off.
What has become of Lingamgate? Will he be allowed to korek, korek, korek and spoil your harvest?
#2 by undergrad2 on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 6:46 pm
“I thought it was your position that you too didn’t believe in making we rakyat pay through our taxes for acts of an authoritarian leader brooking no dissent. And may I add, neither would our aggrieved judges of integrity who are looking more at this juncture for moral vindication than pecuniary recompense.” Jeffrey QC
Liability has first to be established. Perhaps we cross the bridge when we come to matters of execution (of the judgment). Remember, we are also to be blamed for allowing it to happen and for it to continue as long as it did. Didn’t we help put BN into power? We should be accountable for our actions, don’t you think?
The judges are not looking for monetary compensation?? We are talking millions here? Anyway that is not the sole purpose of the law suit. The primary purpose would be to establish liability and you cannot go into it without knowing what had really happened. This is better than any commission could hope to do! The proceedings are public and transparent.
#3 by undergrad2 on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 6:52 pm
Imagine having Tun M on the witness stand and under oath!!!
#4 by gofortruth on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 6:54 pm
We last heard of a woman (Lingam case) testified that ACA personnel had paid her RM3000 so that the case is closed, it just goes to show how corrupted this ACA body is.
First thing first, ACA itself must undergo a complete spring cleansing before new recruits are similarly infested.
ACA should be led & stuffed by God fearing personnel instead of money worshippers. Get the religious bodies (Muslims, Christians, Budhists etc) to recommend potential recruitees instead of just filling up the posts with unemployed undergraduates.
#5 by bystander on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 6:57 pm
Dr M, the greatest liar and denial in history, on hardtalk, BBC tonight.
#6 by hiro on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 7:09 pm
From what I understand, ICAC Hong Kong does not have prosecutorial powers. However, if MCAC says go ahead with prosecution – and AG says no, then AG must fully justify in Parliament – they need to put this into the MCAC Act as well. At the same time, the 5000 odd officers of MCAC should be well versed with criminal procedure code and Evidence Act – we do not want bungled investigation. MCAC should only recruit the cream of the crop from AG Chambers, the Police, Judicial Services and professionals.
#7 by allen ng on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 7:47 pm
If the ACA is to follow the ICAC of Hong Kong,maybe there is still some light in malaysia’s fight for corruption.I bet ICAC is one of the best in this region and Pak lah should implement it as soon as possible if he wants to save the country from getting worst.Maybe,this is the time for him to repent as his time is ticking by the minutes.The people would remember him for the good deeds that he has contributed before he gracefully exited from the political scene.
#8 by Godfather on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 7:52 pm
You guys are so naive. This “promise” from a drowning rat who would clutch at straws. This from the same guy who promised “booklets” on the AP scandal and the crooked bridge fiasco. This from the guy who started reading the 600 page report a year ago and never finished.
The Chinese have a saying: “No head, no tail” for someone who has proven never to walk the talk.
ACA reporting to a parliamentary committee? Consisting of which members ? Reports to be submitted to the AG’s Chambers who can then decide if there is a case or no case.
The basic tenet of the den of thieves: When a party’s membership is predicated upon the need to steal, that party isn’t going to expose its tactics. It may make promises to do so, but rest assured that there will be backdoor means to avoid detection. Complying with public demands simply means the death of the party concerned.
#9 by Godfather on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 7:58 pm
Take for example the Public Accounts Committee. That reports to a parliamentary select committee, doesn’t it ? Totally toothless, both in terms of the Committee itself and the parliamentarians it reports to.
#10 by allasstra on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 8:03 pm
hmmm….i’m confused…..
was it an independent,or “independent” aca ?
what does “answerable to the parliment” mean ?
who are the parliment ? and until recently has the parliment had a much more balanced voice of the ppl,…and what if the ratio droped again to 90/10% in the 13th g.e ? what will that “parliment” be again ?
imho,….the real independent body should be answering directly to the people…with reports of the closed case available to the public,…like the classified papers of uk/us that are open to public after 30 years or so…then and only then will it be really transparent…
and how do we know it’s really independent ?
#11 by devilmaster on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 8:08 pm
Words or commitments must be translated into action. I want something that is real and active; not just mere talk.
Will BPR now going to charge Muhammad son of Muhammad, Ali Rustam, Osu Sukam, Khir Toyo, Rafidah Aziz,Taib Mahmud?
#12 by cemerlang on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 8:15 pm
I welcome the piece of news reported by the newspaper concerning the Anti Corruption Agency, Malaysia going independent. Not just independent. But also non interferences by any party. The ACA should be empowered to prosecute and arrest.
The ACA should go right after the big corruptors. Not small time corruptors purposely planted in some tiny, forgotten government office and recorded in the report as a case solved. Don’t use this small fly as a threat which will never be carried out. What’s that between Ringgit Malaysia 8000 and Ringgit Malaysia millions, if not billions ? Stop giving excuses. Just drag them to the court of justice and question them. Make sure whoever who has the power to finance, who can touch the finance and who have a say to the finance should have their names highlighted. Not that they have committed a crime but it is better to make them always be on a alert before they think it is fun to play with the people’s money.
Malaysians, the money is yours. Stop being screwed by the people whom you elect.
#13 by Godfather on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 8:27 pm
Devilmaster:
If they do that, there will be no space in our prisons. Then perhaps some crony will come up with an idea to build a RM2 billion prison for ex-VIPs.
#14 by Joe Cheah on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 8:28 pm
I sometimes do not understand the opposition supporters – criticized for not doing and criticized for doing. What should it be, folks?
Now, please don’t get me wrong for I am no BN supporter. To me BN is all about UMNO and UMNO only – UMNO’s pies, UMNO’s rights, UMNO’s happiness, etc., etc.; others should be good tennants and be happy to be allowed to live in this country. In fact I have been an opposition supporter since the early eighties.
Anyway back to my point.
Instead of criticizing our PM, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, we should applaud and support him for the various changes and measures he has introduced recently. I believed he is being sincere when he annouced that he has heard the voices of the rakyat, hence all these changes and measures which is for a better future of our country. More of these measures will be in the pipe line soon. Syabas!
Our PM has now shown us his bravery and determination by pushing for these changes inspite of him having (in my opinion) to face a near mutiny from within his own party, some old guards of Dr. M and Dr. Moron himself. If the old Dr. Moron had still been the PM today we could not even smell, let alone, see these changes taking place now.
For someone who had already lost all hope of this country, I am now begining to see a little ray of light at the end of the tunnel.
For this I salute and support you, our PM – Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
#15 by ktteokt on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 8:33 pm
Let’s “put our eyes long” (direct Chinese translation) and see how CLEAN the proposed upgrading of the ACA will turn out to be. If I am not wrong, it is a case of “Changing the soup without changing the medicine”.
#16 by ongheanteik on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 8:34 pm
Actually Abdullah is doing the things he said he would in 2004, which he had not done till 2008. Objective observers will give grudging approval. Challange is for DAP to respond with intelligent comments, support what is right, and criticise what is wrong.
The worry is that DAP elected assemblymen will become like arrogant Barisan people. In Penang, CM’s political secretary comes across as proud, and does not seem to appreciate sincere comments made to enhance CM’s position. Others make promises only to change at last minute, just like barisan. Why not be HONEST, and say NO immediatedly if unable to fulfill request. Also learn to sound pleasant and friendly when saying “no”, instead of being proud, self-rightous and haughty.
Otherwise it will be a quick return for Abdullah and his men !!
#17 by rainmankl on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 8:53 pm
I believe the most appropriate person that the independent ACA should report to should be our Agong.
He is above politic and so not bias towards any political party.
He will always has the rakyats’ welfare ( like trengganu’s sultan) in his heart.
If BN can control 2/3 the parliament(I am just saying only ,IF)
then the ACA will go back to square one.
#18 by undergrad2 on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 9:03 pm
These public announcements are nice to read and look good on paper. But really the only justice we could hope to get is when there is a change in government.
While we should not be naive as to expect ‘change’ everytime ‘change’ is announced or mentioned, we have to give it the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, it is not likely to be much more than window dressing by a Prime Minister who is probably seeking to preserve whatever is left of his battered legacy.
#19 by sonicwall on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 9:08 pm
Uncle Kit
Can you ask Pak Lah what happen to the Lingam Tape Royal Commission Report? When is it out?
#20 by undergrad2 on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 9:26 pm
What about police corruption? Shouldn’t there be “an internal affairs unit” to investigate their own?
#21 by undergrad2 on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 9:52 pm
On the issue of judicial reforms, I’m curious why the issue of the return to the jury system has never been raised.
Let the judge give the instructions on the law to the jury, and let the jury be the trier of the facts of the case rather than the judge be the trier of both law and facts.
We should have a full jury system and one that is not limited to just capital crimes.
The reasons for doing away with jury trials are no more valid today. Those days it is difficult to find people who are educated up to high school to serve on the jury. Some half a century later Malaysians today are more educated and the pool of jurors can easily be drawn from the electoral rolls.
The jury system would help reduce instances of miscarriage of justice due to corruption and corrupt judges.
#22 by blablowbla on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:26 pm
it showed tat the BN gomen either they are stupid or stubborn,why every time they need the advice from oppositions?myself LKS or DSAI be the PM,vision 2020 is definitely achievable;i dun trust the BN,especially always the UMNO head be the PM,PM should be selected by people,like Mr.Ma Ing Jiu from Taiwan,he is a true leader,rakyat’s leader,not UMNO head automatic become PM!
#23 by Better Future on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:26 pm
Anti-corruption reform is a good start but I totally don’t agree with someone saying will convince whole family vote for BN just for this. This is a good check and balance which I will fully support not that I’m a die hard Pakatan Rakyat supporter is because we all had eye to notice that the BN government and also the so car MCA is doing a lot of chances after losing badly in GE12. If BN had won the GE12 for 2/3 majority you think all this will ever happen see what had happen after our curren PM won almost 92% of parliment seat. He when on sleeping for the next 4 years and the Keris issue came out.
#24 by simsimsim on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:27 pm
Wat ?? give me a break !! M’sia ACA to become HKG’s ICAC …. Another cakap –cakap and siok siok sendiri only lah…. Let’s see how it work out and may have to wait for another 4 years to see some ikan bilis being kantunged …. Ai yah !! all wayang kulit loh !!!
#25 by Jeffrey on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:29 pm
Common compliant is that the PM indulges in empty rhetoric but not deeds, and action speaks louder than words.
In a developed matured political society, a leader who talks without walking the talk sullies and undermines the democratic process but the same is not necessarily true in a converse situation.
In a feudal political culture like ours, which has steadily over past 40 years become increasingly corrupt and authoritarian, rhetoric, even unsupported by action, is important to reverse such a culture.
Any leader who talks and walks the talk will immediately be eliminated by vested interests within and feeding on such a system, resistant to change.
There are some advantages in talking without walking the talk in such feudal political culture.
First, it (rhetoric) benchmarks and reaffirms standards of governance for electorate; rhetoric sets rakyat’s expectations of their elected representatives and leaders higher; make it easier for electorate to turn skeptic to contradict and discredit their leaders in respect of their disjunct between what is claimed and what actually is implemented by such leaders, the wider the disjunct, the likelier the withdrawal of voting support, thereby exerting pressure on the ruling elite to narrow such disjunct and gap to re-establish support by accommodating democratic changes demanded by the awakened voters.
On May 8th we witnessed how the leader’s rhetoric unmatched by deeds has awakened the electorate to demand for change and deprive the ruling coalition from its two third majority with every promise to deprive it even the simple majority the next around.
So I am in favour of the PM’s recent announcement of judicial reforms and reforms to ACA to make it independent – mere rhetoric many skeptics here are entitled to say. They are the continuance of the benchmarking process (since AAB took office) so necessary to transform a political culture going the way of Nigeria and Zimbabwe if unchecked, and which has so far shown positive results by creating a ‘political tsunami on March 8th 2008 and promises to take the BN out if such benchmarking is not attempted by the ruling coalition to be honoured by deeds.
#26 by blablowbla on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:35 pm
he never took stern actions against deceased Datuk Zakaria related to his corruption,he ignored Hishamudin and KJ’s remarks and extremed behavior that had hurt the non-Malays,now,he deploy MMT,ppl like sakai Bung Mokthar to be leader of back-bencher in Parliament,if you trust him,i think you are in saint!
#27 by Jeffrey on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:38 pm
In a matured political culture, walking the talk is prerequisite of leadership. In an autocratic, corrupt and feudal political culture protected fiercely by vested interests and warlords, the only realistic mothod of un-doing such culture is to talk, talk and talk (benchmarking) so that one may be left alone by vested interests warlords and protectors of the system thinking that one won’t walk it, without them realising it is precisely such talk that incite voters and outsiders from pressuring the system from outside to cause its implosion by the simple device of mass swing of votes against such vested interests, warlords and protectors in a general or by elections.
#28 by Jeffrey on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:39 pm
Should be – “…incite voters and outsiders to pressure the system from outside..”
#29 by Jeffrey on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:46 pm
Many Non Malays in 2004 supported the BN. If they were not “hurt” would so many have been awakened to unite and deliver a masive protest vote against the BN that has achieved the result of splitting Parlaiment right into two equal halves of the ruling coalition and the opposition? The “hurt” was exactly the right medicine without which the BN system would continue unshakened.
#30 by zik76 on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 10:59 pm
Saudara Lim,
I would like to sugest that gov. also may evaluate in setting uf 1 Federal agency that focusing on complicated crime issue & high profile cases particularly kidnapping cases. Sad to say our Police are not that competent in solving high profile kidnaping cases such as Nurin, Sharlinie & many more unresolved cases.
This federal agency could that the example of FBI in USA that are more focussed, equip with needed & special skills that focus on high profile cases and could specialize in various aspect of crime.
Our current police is to occupy with many things that make them (maybe) from my opinion unable to focus all the needed effort in getting the crime to be solved.
This federal investigation & crime agency could take over any high profile cases from any State Police or any Police dept. should they responsible police department unable to solve that case.Eg. should there by a kidnapping case, Police will iniate the 1 action but in the event the police dept. unable to solve the case within certain duration let say 2 months; the Federal Investigation & Crime Agency will take over as they’re more specialized, skilled and has federal authority to command other fed. agencies such as rela of JPA3 in supporting the investigation effort.
In other word we should have our own Malaysian’s FBI agency.
This in other could also ease the police burden, they could focus more in solving state cases and their rutin daily operation could be much more effective.
It will also potray outside confident in our effort to fight crime more effectively & systematically.
Hope this question could rise in Parliment.
Thank You
ZIK
#31 by gofortruth on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 11:12 pm
TDM on hard talk -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/08/hardtalk/mohamad21apr.ram
#32 by zik76 on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 11:14 pm
1 best example to justify my opinion above is the Federal Agency of APMM or Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritime Malaysia – copying the US Coast Guard version.
APMM are more focussed on Malaysian maritime enforcement & security measures that previously were tasked to the TLDM.Help to ease the burden of TLDM in focussing on the defence of our sea.
zik
#33 by waterfrontcoolie on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 11:32 pm
Let us don’t judge the PM without giving him a second chance. Slow as he is, finally he has agreed to do what he had promised; having waited so long [ since '04 ] we can all wait a little longer. If this site continue to bash others without being appeared to be reasonable and rational, this site may lose its audience.
Let PR rise above the previous Gomen, show them that you are made of sterner stuff.
It is good for Penang Gomen to rope in Lee of Gerakan, be brave to act out of the box! If Lee can contribute to the growth of Penang, why not? Leave Keng Yaik along, he had nothing better to do than to follow his Grandmaster who now thought Najib was useless!!
Malaysians being forgetful and absent-minded will allow politicians to screw them up again, after a year or two.
This the KARMA of Malaysians.
#34 by lakilompat on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 11:32 pm
Hello all, guess how much it cost a foreigner to receive 1 day ward stay at Malaysia private hospital?
Shenzhen hospital is charging RM 1K for 1 day stay. That’s filthy expensive, are all chinese enjoy cheaper per night stay at hospital. With RM 1K you should be able to get 6 star ward at top private specialist in Malaysia, am i right?
#35 by billgates on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 11:42 pm
I will trust ACA if those main actors accused in the Linggam Tape are brought to justice.
http://pakatanrakyat-malaysia.blogspot.com
#36 by Cucurpisang on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 11:54 pm
Let’s hope this is not another political ‘tai chi’ mooted by UMNO led gov to tke us for another ride. Objectively, ACA must never be subserviant to UMNO led Cabinet.
#37 by tsuchong on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 11:55 pm
I really do hope that he is sincere in doing all these.
But somehow, still have the feeling that he’s just playing a political game. Looks like he’s not as blur as we all thought.
#38 by observer on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 11:56 pm
In my opinion , AAB is using the populist approach toward his presumed early exit from forced retirement. Beside the Judiciary reform, the ACA reform , two other reforms will be present with his ongoing fight with TDM. AAB had a lot to choose from, repeal of the PPPA (Printing, Press and Publication Act ) the IPMC reform , repeal of the ISA act etc..He might even release the Hindraf 5 too? Nevertheless with his last found passion we should thank him for these unpopular reforms within his corrupted BN .
#39 by allasstra on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 1:06 am
undergrad2, be careful of what u wish….and think hard before u say anything…..
jury system !
[1] malaysia is not,and have not became a developed cuntry.
[2] malaysia have not had >90% literated population.
[3] malaysia had more than 50% “stupid” people per capita,as indicated by the recent election results,not to mention the “damaged” votes.(why are there so many ?)
[4] a random survey of this blog alone has indicated a hi-number of idiots without critical thinking.[deleted]
[5] as suggested by the pervious thread,we still have a hi-number of err…”programed” people who have certain biased p.o.v.
[6] malaysian still has a high tendency to be lead/mislead by the state-controled-media.
[7] look at the u.s,where trial by jury prevails, misscarriage of justice happened more frequent than terror attack.(remember darryl hunt /martin tanklef/joshua riverra and more), oh,…not to mention that the entire case are lost/won by jury manipulation…
think again….
suggested reading :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice
#40 by alancheah on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 2:23 am
TIME will tell the REAL TRUTH.
We will all see if our Anti Corruption Agency
can REALLY do a GOOD Job after this.
God Bless Malaysia!
#41 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 2:28 am
“[4] a random survey of this blog alone has indicated a hi-number of idiots without critical thinking.[deleted] allasstra
Very interesting! But regretfully it is one observation that I must say I do not share. I mean about the high number.
You as attorney may exercise your preemptory challenges to get rid of potential jurors who have a low IQ. But sometimes you need dumb jurors to be on the panel! That depends. One type of preemptory challenges does not need to have reasons assigned. The other requires reasons and are limited in number of challenges.
[deleted]
Lawyers and people in law enforcement are not qualified to be jurors. I do not think there is a law exempting people with low IQs from serving as jurors. He or she must know, of course, right from wrong. If there is such a law then all our Cabinet Ministers are exempted.
#42 by ihavesomethingtosay on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 2:28 am
Another take on ACA
http://lsw1965.blogspot.com/
#43 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 2:34 am
In the U.S. jury consultants make good money!
#44 by allasstra on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 2:57 am
undergrad2 Says:
“You as attorney may exercise your preemptory challenges to get rid of potential jurors who have a low IQ. But sometimes you need dumb jurors to be on the panel! That depends. One type of preemptory challenges does not need to have reasons assigned. The other requires reasons and are limited in number of challenges.”
—that’s my point,…jury system had enable justice to be manipulated,by the rich(good lawyer who knows how manipulate the juries) or by luck(the juries that was asigned to your case is just dumb)
that jury system alone,…in the end will fill this cuntry with more blood-sucking s/d.o.b.s[law-yers] rather than being more democratic….
#45 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 3:55 am
Allastra,
No juror is “assigned to your case”. They are chosen from a pool of potential jurors from the electoral roll or from the data base of DMV – more like the latter.
But your lawyer is allowed to exercise what they call ‘preemptory challenges’ until he gets the right type of jurors that he thinks would be good for your case. The jurors must number a minimum twelve (not including alternate jurors) and all must be agreed to by both lawyers.
Jury selection is a specialized field and jury consultants in the U.S. make tons of money sometimes as much as $250k per case that goes to trial.
Think again. The traditional view is that justice is about you being tried by a jury of your peers and not by a judge.
#46 by allasstra on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 4:28 am
arghghghg…!!!
as u had said:
“No juror is “assigned to your case”. They are chosen from a pool of potential jurors from the electoral roll or from the data base of DMV – more like the latter.”
—after they ARE chosen,then they BECAME ASSIGNED to your case….ie,they had became the juries of your case…
“But your lawyer is allowed to exercise what they call ‘preemptory challenges’ until he gets the right type of jurors that he thinks would be good for your case. The jurors must number a minimum twelve (not including alternate jurors) and all must be agreed to by both lawyers.”
—yes,so a poor homeless guy will get a state asigned lawyer,which may OR may not be really interested in your case. worst is when there are sub-reputable lawyers who offers u a pro-bono service to fullfill thier “social obligation”,which,…due to thier already sub-standard reputation,have nothing to loose by loosing ur case…and may even profit(under table) by cutting a deal with state prosecutor who are under intense media pressure.
i really doubt that a poor homeless guy could afford a lawyer that will spend lots of $$$ and time on jury profiling/selection process on a pro-bono basis….
as this line of yours says it well
“Jury selection is a specialized field and jury consultants in the U.S. make tons of money sometimes as much as $250k per case that goes to trial.”
—which will translated into [only those who could afford the best and the most expensive lawyers that can afford costly jury profiling and selection will have a favorable verdict].
and that is why the poor in the u.s.a has always been shafted by the rich, to the point they hav a saying that goes,and i quote :”LAWYERS GOES TO HELL” end-quote.
so when u said:
“Think again. The traditional view is that justice is about you being tried by a jury of your peers and not by a judge.”
—only after u had spent a lot of $$$ to hire some1 to choose this “peers” of yours that would sympathise/agree/understand with u.
will a cheap lawyer hired by a middle class family goes as far as spending lots of $$$ on jury profiling ?
and now i have the feeling that i wouldnt wanted to be judge by a jury such as u. as u are clearly either too rich to think from the point of the poor,or just plain stupid.
p/s: forgot to mention that u r also included in
number [4] of my earlier post.
#47 by chiakchua on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 5:51 am
Let’s give support to Pak Lah on the decision to make ACA something like ICAC. However, it must be seen to be real ICAC. Make sure no black hand at the back to meddle in putting someone’s cronies in its senior staffs appointment, otherwise it defeats the purpose!
It must be headed by someone real ‘clean and capable’; meritocracy must be practiced in this department. If the staffing shows again controlled by single race, then it only shows its uncleanness right from the start! This is the problem with our civil service; the government purposely allow it to be a hot bed for the growth of racist and religion extremist. Let this Malaysian ICAC the first department that shows our multi racial staffing can deliver!
#48 by allasstra on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 6:18 am
chiak chua,…your comment didnt makes any sense.
it’s your
“If the staffing shows again controlled by single race,”
and the
“Let this Malaysian ICAC the first department that shows our multi racial staffing”
u see,…malaysia is made up of roughly of :
70% malay
20% chinese
10% indian
(discounting the demographic in sabah/sarawak)
therefore,any balanced .org will be made up of 70/20/10 malay,chinese and indian respectively.
therefore is has a 70% chance to be headed by malay,and mostly senior admin will be made up of malay.
this can be seen as it [being controlled by a single race]
to have it other way,ie headed by chinese or indian would imply that it has abandoned malays in favor of the chinese/indian. then, it would in the eyes of the malays,be seen as [being controlled by a single race]
no matter what u do, it cant be seen as fair to all in the racial context
the issue of race/gender should be droped out completely…and ppl should stop seeing an .org as being controled by which race,and instead focus on what it does, transparency, fairness, effectiveness, and stuff like that.
even if it’s controlled by 100% of a certain race(eg:singh) is fine with me,as long as it’s 100% fair,just,effective and didnt waste my tax $$$.
#49 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 6:22 am
If you are a rich client and you have the best legal brains working for you, it may make a difference bearing in mind that a defendant can only be found ‘not guilty’ which is not the same as saying he or she is innocent. I can give that to you.
But in most cases if the veracity of the evidence is against you, no matter who represents you, you are likely to be found guilty. There will be miscarriage of justice, of course, since the adversarial system is not perfect but this is the best we have.
We have prisoners languishing in jail for some ten years only to be released because of a third party’s DNA evidence found at the scene of the crime, evidence which was not available at the time of trial. In many cases they did the crime but in view of new DNA evidence surfacing years later, it can no longer be said that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did the crime.
In a jury trial it can be argued that the defendant stands a better chance of being found not guilty – than in a non-jury trial where the judge is both the trier of the law and the facts. In a developing country where the level of poverty is high, the rate of literacy is low, you have difficulty in identifying jurors. I do not think Malaysia today falls in that category.
Both micro and macro aspects of justice will have to be considered in the drive for judicial reforms.
#50 by allasstra on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 - 7:19 am
admin; can you please provide a list of words that shouldnt be used in this blog….