Comments on: Privacy of an individial is human right

By: ryan123

ryan123 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:55:17 +0000

imranj78,

I understand where you are coming from. However, your lack of understanding about the DNA bills have lead you to ignorance. Everyone knows the name, but what about the specific acts within this?

Here are some URLs which may serve you well,
http://www.aliran.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=697:dna-bill-draconian-law-in-the-offing&catid=55:2008&Itemid=40
http://www.parti-sosialis.org/?p=351

Apparently, the home minister can manipulate the law for personal agenda and interests. And apparently BN can use this loophole to achieve their objective with the implementation of this bill.

Cheers

By: AhPek

AhPek — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:20:56 +0000

katdog,
It also like looking into the malaysian police report and then comparing it with reports from Hong Kong,Japan,Australia and Singapore, and then quickly coming out to declare that Malaysia is a safe place in spite of being told to match the figures with what is happening on at the ground level,and also asked if our police figures credible coming from this bunch of jokers who have lost all credibility in the eyes of the public.Of course our police chief is even better,he says Malaysia is one of the safest place to be in this planet for it is safer than Hong Kong,Australia or Japan and on par with Singapore!!But he forgot we are not that gullible.Besides coming out from his mouth we can’t be gullible,can we?

By: AhPek

AhPek — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:20:07 +0000

katdog,
This guy with a little bit of reading and hardly any understanding has again come up audaciously to declare that DNA Bill must have safeguards since the government has delayed passing the bill.I fail to connect with this logic between delaying of bill passing and having sufficient safeguards.

By: katdog

katdog — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:37:56 +0000

A reply to imranj78,
Sigh! obviously you are unable to read the implicit meaning in my words.
“Tell me SPECIFICALLY what is horrendous about the DNA Bill?” -imranj
That the police are given the right to obtain DNA samples from anyone using whatever means necessary.

If you read properly, i hinted that the proper due process was that: in order to obtain a DNA sample, a court order must be obtained first. I never suggested that criminals could refuse to provide DNA and get away with crimes. What a silly comment.

Example, police must provide evidence that they have found DNA on the crime scene that they are unable to match to the victim etc and therefore need to obtain a DNA sample from the suspect via a court order. If a second sample is needed, valid reasons must once again be provided etc.

That is just one part of what’s so wrong about the DNA bill.

“If you are afraid to use technology to improve our lives, then I suggest you do what chengho has suggested – go back and live in your little cave and be the katak di bawah tempurung!”-imranj78

Sigh, obviously you were so angry that i called you silly and ignorant that you were completely unable to comprehend what i wrote.

As i pointed out in my previous post, i am not questioning the use of DNA technology in crime solving, i am questioning the legal process that governs its usage. So no, Imranj78, you are mistaken when you say i am afraid of technology.

By: OrangRojak

OrangRojak — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 04:32:43 +0000

“this is but one of many many”
This is but one. When you list many many, we can agree on ‘many many’.
“I’m sure you’ll agree”
Your certainty is your downfall. Why do you expect agreement? You think there is only one way to look at the world? Only one Truth?

The certainty with which religious convictions are expressed, and the assumption of right to tell others what to do is the underlying reason for the prohibition of religious symbols in public places in modern societies. I would defend with my last breath a person’s right to wear a headscarf anywhere they please. I wear one myself when I have to cycle on wintry days, often concealing everything but my eyes.

The issue with the Muslim headscarf is neither in the material nor its sartorial currency, nor its practicality. The issues are caused by people claiming to be followers of Islam and using phrases like ‘uncovered meat’. People in positions of authority in a community are associating the lack of a head covering with a victim’s culpability when they are the subject of crime. They are undermining a basic concept in the laws of modern society – that of ‘consent’.

In permissive societies, it is the withholding of consent that defines the victim, which is how you are protected from anal sex in a modern society (you do not consent to it) and others are permitted anal sex (they do consent to it). It is this common property of ‘consent’ that makes the law applicable to all. Communities that wish to enforce different rules will find themselves on the wrong end of occasionally superficially daft rulings – such as ‘no headscarves’. The alternative would be to legislate against the propagation of alternative ideas – something to be rightly dreaded by all.

By: zak_hammaad

zak_hammaad — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:51:31 +0000

Ahpek, I am NOT here to ‘convince’ you or anyone else, Islamic facts and norms will remain unchanged whether you accept them or not. Live with it and let’s agree to disagree.

By: AhPek

AhPek — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:50:35 +0000

zak_hamaad,
you have not convince me one bit at all from example cited.

By: simon041155

simon041155 — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:55:22 +0000

Human rights and the rights to privacy are embodied within the Qur’an and the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights of 1981.

http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html says: “It is unfortunate that human rights are being trampled upon with impunity in many countries of the world, including some Muslim countries.”

It is without doubt that Malaysia is included among these unfortunate countries. So if UMNO does not respect the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights which itself is arrived at based on the Qur’an, what makes you think that it will heed the ECHR ruling?

By: zak_hammaad

zak_hammaad — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:13:37 +0000

AhPek Says:

>> You tell us how a secular government has not allowed Muslims to practise their religion.

Taking one little example of your so-called example state of Turkey where Muslim women are forbidden to wear the head scarf because the secularist/athiest elite deem it to be a symbol of challenge to their values. Many women have been excluded from higher education for wearing the headscarf and Human Rights Watch accused government’s heavy-handed interference in universities and on personal choices as inhibiting academic freedom. This is but one of many many examples of impediments imposed by secular state authorities who do not want to see religious symbols or religious values and personal convictions displayed in public life!

Headscarves do not pose a threat to public safety, health, order or morals, and they do not impinge on the rights of others. Furthermore, headscarves are not inherently dangerous or disruptive of order, and do not undermine educational functions I’m sure you’ll agree.

You still don’t seem to comprehend the underlying reasons for secularism’s non-starter. This may be a good starting point: islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/Secularism.htm

Good day.

By: AhPek

AhPek — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:40:28 +0000

‘Allowing a Muslim to practise their faith without intervention of secular values is also their human right.’. zak_hammaad.

You tell us how a secular government has not allowed Muslims to practise their religion.Many who are non Muslims would any time trust a secular government than an Islamic government for if there is any intervention by governments into other people’s way of life it is almost always the Islamic government!

By: w2008

w2008 — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:07:07 +0000

Ask me to trust the BN, you can go to hell.

Because liar and corrupted people go to hell.

Right.

By: Bigjoe

Bigjoe — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:24:37 +0000

More than just about personal right, societies don’t progress for long when it fails to protect private properties and private rights. We already do very badly in terms of protecting private property and rights, this DNA bill is further trampling on that. Personal Information is more than just private rights, its private property of the highest value in an information and technology age. To rob people of their personal information is personal robbery, plain and simple.

By: frankyapp

frankyapp — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:05:46 +0000

They have used ISA to arrest you with out proof and put you to jail with out any trial.To these people ,it’s still not enough,now they come out with this DNA method to catch and put you to jail as well by just doctoring your original DNA and say here’s evidence.You are now guilty as charged.On the other hand when it’s their friend or crony,they can do the opposite doctoring and say,no evidence,you are free to go. HA,HA,HA,so simple and fast to put innocent one to jail and guilty one free.It’s happening now,yeah yeah in BOLEHLAND ONLY.

By: sean

sean — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:01:29 +0000

Sad to say…but i think most of us watch CSI once too often(me too).Most crime are not solved with THE so called DNA for god sake.
Lets take one example:-
This so called businessman(apparently the two boys uncle) ask or rather temp his bodyguard to throw this boy(a secondary school student) into the swimming pool (the businessman bungalow)and drown him.And at the same time the businessman driver is also there and fortunately witness the whole drama.Then few hours later the victim brother (also another college guy) came home to the bungalow where they stay and found him dead in the pool.Police report were made and our so called”professional” police investigating team arrived and started investigation….blah blah blah.Guess what……………the investigation done were damn shoddy (they must have been paid to do such shoody work) and at last the culprit were never found.So the moral of the story is not that they the mesra cekap dan amanah people can’t prove anything but its just that which side will the bunch of monkeys lean on when they are corrupted to the core.Even if they cant get the DNA (but am sure under the victims finger nail…after a scuffle ofcourse… will have some trace of DNA OR skin or maybe blood stain if we were to follow CSI)so what!!Don’t you think….getting MY DNA (MY=MONEY) is better than anything else.So…as long as the mesracekapamanah guys are dirty(lets say from top to bottom) and the AG are also dirty..ohhh…not to mention the judiciary..and lets not leave them out..i mean…..the federal govt too…..lets not expect much with high tech DNA blah blah blah.Low tech crime also choose not to solve , so what makes you think high tech crime that needed DNA can be solve or rather “which side they need to favour or lean on to get it solve.So do we support The bill……..go figure.

By: Samuel Goh Kim Eng

Samuel Goh Kim Eng — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:25:52 +0000

IT’S CRAZY TO LOSE OUR PRIVACY

We must have our rights to our own privacy
And not fall victim to any form of conspiracy
If we understand fully the meaning of democracy
We will then know what to leave behind as our legacy

By: cemerlang

cemerlang — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:36:57 +0000

That is why you have things like medico-legal. This is also a reminder about things like the ISA and the people who use it. They do not respect the privacy of an individual too. They simply kidnap people in the daylight. In Malaysia, privacy has no meaning. When somebody has AIDs, the whole Malaysia knows about it.

By: imranj78

imranj78 — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:40:08 +0000

katdog,
If we follow your logic, then criminals can decide not to give their DNA for the sake of `personal rights’ even to the extent that the prosecution can’t close the case! I think it is you who are being silly, ignorant and idealistic! Tell me SPECIFICALLY what is horrendous about the DNA Bill?

Obviously all systems must have safeguards so that they do not be abused and this applies to the DNA Bill as well! To that regard the government have done well to delay the passing of the DNA Bill to ensure sufficient safeguards are in place before it is passed into law.

If you are afraid to use technology to improve our lives, then I suggest you do what chengho has suggested – go back and live in your little cave and be the katak di bawah tempurung!

By: hadi

hadi — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:39:04 +0000

It will be disastrous to the people if DNA act is approved. Say what you want but no one can be trusted especially with those people with power.
It is not Anwar as the issue but it is about individual right and privacy.
Malaysians will be in for another historic moment of disaster. Let us not be trapped into another injustice. All Malaysian MPs must reject this Bill, or else we will pray that if any of them agree and one day this law will be the curse of their generation when it is slapped on to their families.
Just remember “kalau you tak kena tak apa, tapi bila you kena baru you tahu”‘ Good luck Malaysians.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable” that is how BN morons view this DNA Bill.

By: chengho

chengho — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:11:09 +0000

Technology rule the world do not politicise the DNA. If you disagree with technology go back to the cave.

By: katdog

katdog — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:30:16 +0000

“The DNA Bill is the way forward if we want to improve the effectiveness of crime prosecution in Malaysia with the ultimate aim of reducing our crime rate.” -imranj78

Again another ignorant and silly answer from imranj.

Please be able to differentiate the forensic use of DNA in crime investigation and the legislative/legal process of use of DNA as evidence in courts. Currently use of DNA is still permissible in our courts but it is up to the discretion of the judge to determine its validity.

If i am not mistaken, in other countries like US, the police have no power to force people to provide DNA samples as they like. The person must voluntarily provide the sample or else it is not permissible in court. If they really need it police must obtain a court order and the court must be satisfied that obtaining the DNA sample is crucial.

Even in US there have been cases of irresponsible persons fabricating DNA evidence against innocents just so they can close the case ‘successfully’.

The DNA bill as it currently stands is horrendous and ill thought out with no respect whatsoever for protecting the rights of the individual. Imranj as usual subscribes to Mahathir’s thought processes of the end justifies the means. Screw proper due process.