Comments on: Police after RPK again http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/ for Malaysia Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:48:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: i_love_malaysia http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-102560 i_love_malaysia Thu, 08 May 2008 09:00:35 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-102560 ktteokt, "Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant!" - Anyone can become judge in Malaysia as long as he/she knows how to say the word!!! ktteokt,

“Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant!” - Anyone can become judge in Malaysia as long as he/she knows how to say the word!!!

]]> By: ktteokt http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-102544 ktteokt Thu, 08 May 2008 07:48:05 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-102544 What good are Malaysian judges if Dr. M himself had confessed to "framing up" DSAI so that he was convicted years back and the presiding judge, Augustine Paul, just keeps quiet. Just how did he come to he verdict then which he can pronounce such a sentence on the then DPM? Shouldn't Augustine Paul come out and confess his sins? And if he does so, what about the piles of cases he has decided as a High Court Judge? Are these judgments correct, righteous and legal? All these makes me wonder what the Malaysian judiciary is becoming. Can we even get justice from the Courts in Malaysia? What good are Malaysian judges if Dr. M himself had confessed to “framing up” DSAI so that he was convicted years back and the presiding judge, Augustine Paul, just keeps quiet. Just how did he come to he verdict then which he can pronounce such a sentence on the then DPM? Shouldn’t Augustine Paul come out and confess his sins? And if he does so, what about the piles of cases he has decided as a High Court Judge? Are these judgments correct, righteous and legal? All these makes me wonder what the Malaysian judiciary is becoming. Can we even get justice from the Courts in Malaysia?

]]> By: procol http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101867 procol Mon, 05 May 2008 16:52:39 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101867 Yup ur right. I'll be sure later on. Yes, the amendment. I don't know whether to be happy or worried. Happy because I don't have to memorise the entire s.113 chapter together with cases, procedures,application,etc. Worried because I don't know how the questions would be come July. The fact is, right this moment, there aren't any cases decided on the amendments. Even after amendment some parts are still ambiguous especially the prima facie part. It's already in force (CPC(Amendment) Act 2006). Sorry, I'm lagging behind in the subject of evidence at the moment. As much as I would like to indulge in an intellectual discourse but i'm kinda pressed for time for my revision. So details might be incomplete.... 1. No more cautioned statement to be taken under s.113CPC. Previously, s.113CPC statements was used in X-examination n impeachment. AG got so sick that people like RPK got beaten the daylights out of them which causes 113 stmts to be inadmissible based on involuntariness. So now all stmt wld be taken under s.112 2. Previously s.113(1) states..."shall be admissible". Now it's "except as provided in this section, no stmt made by any person to a police...shall be used in evidence". 3. prosecution can't use 112 stmt to impeach accused but accused can use 112 stmt of other witnesses to impeach them. 4. There are exceptions to non admissibility of s.112 stmt but too long to list everything here. Get a copy if possible of the new CPC. Yup ur right. I’ll be sure later on.

Yes, the amendment. I don’t know whether to be happy or worried. Happy because I don’t have to memorise the entire s.113 chapter together with cases, procedures,application,etc. Worried because I don’t know how the questions would be come July. The fact is, right this moment, there aren’t any cases decided on the amendments. Even after amendment some parts are still ambiguous especially the prima facie part. It’s already in force (CPC(Amendment) Act 2006). Sorry, I’m lagging behind in the subject of evidence at the moment. As much as I would like to indulge in an intellectual discourse but i’m kinda pressed for time for my revision. So details might be incomplete…. 1. No more cautioned statement to be taken under s.113CPC. Previously, s.113CPC statements was used in X-examination n impeachment. AG got so sick that people like RPK got beaten the daylights out of them which causes 113 stmts to be inadmissible based on involuntariness. So now all stmt wld be taken under s.112 2. Previously s.113(1) states…”shall be admissible”. Now it’s “except as provided in this section, no stmt made by any person to a police…shall be used in evidence”. 3. prosecution can’t use 112 stmt to impeach accused but accused can use 112 stmt of other witnesses to impeach them. 4. There are exceptions to non admissibility of s.112 stmt but too long to list everything here.

Get a copy if possible of the new CPC.

]]> By: undergrad2 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101816 undergrad2 Mon, 05 May 2008 14:59:53 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101816 "Ur right, s.112 statements can’t be used at all after the amendment, not even for impeachment." procol Amendment? What amendment? Something in the pipeline? S. 112 statement is after all an out-of-court statement. It is his court testimony that is the evidence. Like all statements, it should be available for use in the impeachment process. What about memory refreshing - which is akin to admitting hearsay evidence by the back door? “Ur right, s.112 statements can’t be used at all after the amendment, not even for impeachment.” procol

Amendment? What amendment? Something in the pipeline? S. 112 statement is after all an out-of-court statement. It is his court testimony that is the evidence. Like all statements, it should be available for use in the impeachment process.

What about memory refreshing - which is akin to admitting hearsay evidence by the back door?

]]> By: undergrad2 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101814 undergrad2 Mon, 05 May 2008 14:53:29 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101814 Sounds like you're a foreign law grad who is reading for CLP, who is undecided whether to take the plunge into practice. Sounds like you’re a foreign law grad who is reading for CLP, who is undecided whether to take the plunge into practice.

]]> By: procol http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101757 procol Mon, 05 May 2008 09:58:43 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101757 I think you meant to say you’re not a practicing lawyer- undergrad2. Lol, ur a psychic? I missed out on the word "yet". In any event, I can't say I will be a practising lawyer or want to be one. Ur right, s.112 statements can't be used at all after the amendment, not even for impeachment. RPK bound to answer the truth to questions if he chooses to answer but may choose not to answer any questions which has a tendency to expose him to criminal charges. Adverse inference not an issue here. Perhaps post d question to lawyers specializing in criminal litigation. I think you meant to say you’re not a practicing lawyer- undergrad2.

Lol, ur a psychic? I missed out on the word “yet”. In any event, I can’t say I will be a practising lawyer or want to be one. Ur right, s.112 statements can’t be used at all after the amendment, not even for impeachment. RPK bound to answer the truth to questions if he chooses to answer but may choose not to answer any questions which has a tendency to expose him to criminal charges. Adverse inference not an issue here. Perhaps post d question to lawyers specializing in criminal litigation.

]]> By: Jeffrey http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101662 Jeffrey Mon, 05 May 2008 00:59:44 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101662 What the police is up to? Read this interesting if cryptic first comment by one Chaptokam, May 03, 2008 | 11:57:03 in MalaysiaToday to an article with title "Buccaneering Blogger:Will Najib Be Prime Minister?" posted by Super Admin Link - http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/6983/84/ What the police is up to? Read this interesting if cryptic first comment by one Chaptokam, May 03, 2008 | 11:57:03 in MalaysiaToday to an article with title “Buccaneering Blogger:Will Najib Be Prime Minister?” posted by Super Admin

Link -
http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/6983/84/

]]> By: Godfather http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101655 Godfather Mon, 05 May 2008 00:14:38 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101655 You mean we don't know what the police are up to, or that the police themselves don't know what they are up to ??? You mean we don’t know what the police are up to, or that the police themselves don’t know what they are up to ???

]]> By: cheng on soo http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101622 cheng on soo Sun, 04 May 2008 16:19:27 +0000 http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/05/02/police-after-rpk-again/#comment-101622 Why Police nvr charge rpk in the 3 previous incidents, This one, police must charge lah! otherwise, dont know what police are up to?? Why Police nvr charge rpk in the 3 previous incidents,
This one, police must charge lah! otherwise, dont know what police are up to??

]]>