While all right-thinking Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, agree that stern action should be taken against those responsible for the blog which insults Prophet Mohammad, many are asking why the authorities have been so tardy and laid-back in acting when complaint was first made many weeks ago.
Although Utusan Malaysia first reported about the blog last Saturday, 27th December 2008, with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, responding on the same day by directing the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and the police to act quickly against the blog over insults to Prophet Muhammad, in actual fact, the authorities had been aware of the blog concerned for weeks.
This was revealed by the Information Minister, Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek who said on Saturday that the woman in her 20s whose photograph and identify were used in the blog containing insults to Prophet Mohammed had denied owning the Internet domain and had in fact met him two weeks ago to ask RTM to help clear her name.
Shabery said:
“She sought help from RTM to publicise the matter because the web log, which also contains Deepavali messages insulting the Hindus, was not hers and had tarnished her reputation and the company she works for.”
But neither Shabery nor RTM gave her any help although she had lodged reports with the police and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to trace the people responsible after coming to know the existence of the blog several months ago.
Instead, the woman was picked up by the police at 6 pm on Saturday to “assist in the investigation” and later released on police bail!
The police said today that they have identified several suspects in connection with the offensive blog and several people would soon be called up to assist in the investigations under the Sedition Act.
The question Hamid Albar, Shabery and MCMC should answer is why the police, the RTM and MCMC had been so tardy and laid-back in taking action against the blog concerned when the woman victim had lodged reports with the police, the Information Minister and the MCMC weeks before the Utusan Malaysia report last Saturday and why she had to be taken into custody to “assist in investigations” despite her earlier complaints!
#1 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:57 am
If you read my previous two posts, you’ll find that I’m making exactly the point that relevance and reliability are two different things entirely.
I say in those posts that whereas you may be right in challenging the reliability of my opinion given that I’m not an expert, you cannot say on this basis that it is irrelevant, since (as you have rightly pointed out) relevance and reliability are two different things entirely.
#2 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:58 am
I don’t read Undergrad2’s comment “in all these issues your opinion is not relevant”as meaning (personal) to denigrate the opinions of non-experts in Malaysian law or non legally trained persons.
Put it in another way even even if it were opinion of a lawyer specialising in criminal law, his opinion may or may not be relevant (in what I think is Undergrad2’s sense), depending ultimately on the judge whether he agrees that that opinion really represents the law as promulgated and intended by Parliament, which it is his task to adjudge and decide (including whether it is “right” to treat the woman as suspect ….)
Right here means what is right in law. If the law requires reasonable or probable cause (on the circumstances) to link the woman to the offence before treating her as suspect to be released on bail, then thats it : her being treated as suspect is wrong (legally) if on the facts it is unreasonable, in the judge’s view, for the police to so link….never mind whatever else persons whether laymen or trained lawyer may have different opinion whether on moral or legal or common sense grounds.
It may be a legal fiction but when it comes to adjudicating what is relevant law or fact, there is only but one reasonable man – the judge, a fiction for the system to work!
Our lawyers are trained to focus on that which matters – what is the law (as interpreted accurately ) to divine Parliament’s intent, whose job through the people’s reprsentatives is to make laws for the people (that wh y g overnment of the people for the people).
Therefore our opinion of what morally or legally ought to be the case whether we be legal experts or laymen is, from this “restricted” perspective, irrelevant when one is working through and interpreting the rules and the laws- often a jungle of words, that fail to give mathematical precision – as to what Parliament intended, when making the law.
Thats looking at the micro picture.
Macro-wise, although laws and morals don’t necesarily intersect (for example, it is immoral but not unlawful not to save or lend helping hand to a person drowning or committing suicide), yet ultimately all laws and rules must repose on a moral/ethical foundation that provide the legitimacy for their adherence by the people and enforcement by the state.
I shall not dwell futher in this, a field called “jurisprudence” (philosophy of law) (which students of philosophy as well as Law study).
#3 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 9:58 am
As I say and defend in a previous post, this issue involves both legal and ethical (and thus philosophical) aspects
#4 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:03 am
Neither do I read it as a denigration. And whether it is a denigration is not an issue for me at all. I’m only interested in showing that he is wrong to claim that my opinion is not relevant to the discussion here: while opinions of non-experts may not be reliable and may not be admissable to a court of law, they are nonetheless relevant to the discussion here.
#5 by limkamput on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:12 am
Relevancy and reliability are two different things entirely. Heresay evidence is irrelevant and hence inadmissible. But in many cases they are very reliable. undergad2
Seem beautifully said. But are you also saying most court systems are baloney and lawyers liars – sometimes they admit irrelevant evidence; sometimes they throw out reliable evidence – all based on some archaic technicality? NO wonder most wannabe lawyers here argue with no common sense and mostly devoid of reality.
#6 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:15 am
Jeffrey says:
‘Put it in another way even even if it were opinion of a lawyer specialising in criminal law, his opinion may or may not be relevant (in what I think is Undergrad2’s sense), depending ultimately on the judge whether he agrees that that opinion really represents the law as promulgated and intended by Parliament, which it is his task to adjudge and decide (including whether it is “right” to treat the woman as suspect ….)’
I think it is more accurate to say that ‘his opinion may or may not be accurate/reliable’ rather than saying that it may or may not be ‘relevant’.
Suppose two lawyers A and B are talking about a legal issue in a court of law in Malaysia. A has an accurate understanding of Malaysian law and thus provides an accurate opinion on the matter. B provides an inaccurate opinion on the matter because he doesn’t have adequate knowledge or understanding in that aspect of Malaysian law. The judge decides to accept A’s opinion. But that does not mean that what B says is irrelevant. It is just inaccurate.
This argument also shows that we shouldn’t treat ‘admissable in a court of law’ as a synomyn to ‘relevant to a court of law’. Thus, I shouldn’t have followed Undergrat2 in assuming this synonymous relation in my last two posts.
#7 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:16 am
Of course all of us have the right to give our piece, whether in this forum or elsewhere. It is our democratic right to express an opinion, esp a considered on what we think the law is or ought to be but whether opinion based on logic, common sense, ethical points count at the end of the day, that’s an other story.
For ultimately it is the law, the rules and their internal logic and interplay/interaction between multiple legal precepts (as viewed by the judge or past judges in precedents) that count and make the difference, more than our opinions, which, though well thought out and even logically infallible, may (or may not necessarily) depict law as it stands.
#8 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:26 am
Jeffrey says:
‘…but whether opinion based on logic, common sense, ethical points count at the end of the day, that’s an other story.’
I think what you mean by ‘whether these count’ is ‘whether these are accurate’. On this interpretation I completely agree with you and Undergrad2, as shown by my previous posts.
What I disagree is to take ‘whether these count’ as ‘whether these are relevant’.
Thus, while Undergrad2 can question the accuracy and reliability of my opion on that particular issue, he shouldn’t have said that it is irrelevant.
#9 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:27 am
oops… ‘…my OPINION on that…’
sorry
#10 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:36 am
The issue involves both legal and ethical aspects. Note that I’m not saying that the both legal and ethical considerations are relevant to the legal aspect of the issue and that both legal and ethical considerations are relevant to the ethical aspect of the issue.
Only legal considerations are relevant to the legal aspect of the isuse, and only ethical considerations are relevant to the ethical aspect. This is the sense in which both legal and ethical aspects are involved in this issue.
#11 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:37 am
” But reasonable grounds to ask someone to assist in an investigation are different from reasonable grounds to treat someone as a formal suspect or to arrest someone as a formal suspect (in this case, arrest seems to be implied by her release on bail).” Lee
This is so convoluted that this line of reasoning is not worth pursuing more than to say that there is no such thing in law as “to arrest someone as a formal suspect”.
To arrest or detain someone, the police must have probable cause or reasonable ground that a crime has been committed. Once arrested, he is of course a suspect because of the presumption of innocence. He is alleged to have committed the offence. He is not guilty of anything at this stage. You need to be a suspect before you could be lawfully arrested. Whether you will have to be released shortly after would depend on the evidence i.e. whether the evidence against you rises to the level of prima facie evidence. Suspects do get released afterwards because there is insufficient evidence to continue detaining them.
#12 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:38 am
It is interesting this argument about “relevance” and “accuracy”.
I believe we know what this word “relevance” to an issue is in its ordinary grammatical meaning.
However legally trained persons talking about law speaks a relevance with a nuance that it means what according to the rules of evidence is admissible to be considered in a court, when making judgment of wh at law is.
Supposing there is a piece of evidence (a weapon) directly connecting somebody to a crime. Better still his wife expresses an opinion that the suspect husband has said something very bad about the victim murdered (before he was murdered).
Now to all of us (common sense) these are all “relevant” considerations pointing to motive and guilt.
However if the rules of evidence say the weapon traced from torturing a person is inadmissible or a spouse like wife cannot give evidence to incriminate the husband, then al l these facts that are common sensically relevant are no more relevant or “irrelevant” in that they cannot be admitted in court for consideration under rules of evidence.
Before we condemn such a law (evidence) it is structured such to prevent torture/duress as a means of getting evidence; it is also to prevent spouses not trusting each other when intimate confidences may be used against the other in court of law.
True it is society’s interest to catch and punish wrong doer but society does no t operate on a single axis of objective/imperative but multiple competing imperatives requiring weighing and balance.
As much as punishing guilt is important, so are the method of extracting evidence that must not violate human and civil rights or the confidences of husbands/wife i n order to buttress family institution, an important block in society stability and foundation.
Hence these rules on evidence that make what is relevant to us as laymen neither relevant nor accurate in law to a person like Undergrad2 of legal training and aspiration.
#13 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:43 am
“Seem beautifully said. But are you also saying most court systems are baloney and lawyers liars – sometimes they admit irrelevant evidence; sometimes they throw out reliable evidence – all based on some archaic technicality? NO wonder most wannabe lawyers here argue with no common sense and mostly devoid of reality” limkamput
No bloviating please! That is the job of the professor.
#14 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:44 am
Well, even if we accept that ‘what is relevant to a court of law’ is equivalent to ‘what is admissable in a court of law’, my contention that Undergrad2 shouldn’t have said that my opinion is not relevant is still right. This is because what matters here is whether my opinion is relevant to the discussion we’ve been carrying out here, not whether it is relevant to a court of law (if we assume that synonymous relation)
#15 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:47 am
One may call it legal speak but we talk at cross purposes with lawyers because to us our frame of reference is logic, commonsense of what is true…but to the lawyer, it is a different frame of reference this word “relevant”, and th e lawy er is entitled to ask, what is the point when such relevant “truths” are not allowed by the law of evidence to be considered such in the court? It is as good as saying they are “not relevant” because when they are inadmissble by techical rules, they cannot be considered in the trial, which practically is as good as they are not there…. (I have earlier explained in simplified terms the reason for such evidential rules based on balance of competing objectives).
#16 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:55 am
“Hence these rules on evidence that make what is relevant to us as laymen neither relevant nor accurate in law to a person like ….” Jeffrey QC
There is no better system than the adversarial system that we follow.
There are rules of evidence, and there are rules of procedure which must be followed. Relevant evidence is sometimes excluded because it is more prejudicial than it is probative. Reliable evidence is sometimes excluded because it goes against the common law rule excluding hearsay.
In our search for the truth, innocent people are sometimes convicted. Guilty ones sometime walk free.
Nevertheless, the adversarial system is still the best we got.
#17 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:59 am
In my last post I say that EVEN IF we assume that ‘relevant to a court of law’ is synonymous with ‘admissable in a court of law’.
Now, let’s discuss whether they are synonymous.
According to Oxford Dictionary, ‘relevant’ means ‘connected with something’. I presume that ‘admissable’ means ‘acceptable’. Now what is acceptable as a piece of evidence in a court case may or may not be connected with that case. Whereas a piece of evidence obtained through torture is inadmissable in the court case being discussed in a court of law, it is still connected with that case in the court of law. So these are different notions. It’s better to keep the distinction between what is admissable in a court case being discussed in a court of law and what is relevant to a court case being discussed in a court of law.
#18 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 10:59 am
Yes I agree that your’s mine and others opinions on the matter are relevant to discussion. As I said it is our entitlement to express an opinion. It is not a monopoly for legally trained persons to discuss legal issues – we to have our merits- though because of their training, I will pay more attention.
Undergrad2 is/was a person of specialised training, so when he said our views are “irrelevant” I don’t think he meant it personal as meaning that we don’t know what is right or wrong, logical or or illogical, or even know some law, but relevance in terms of the actual and speciic law on police powers raised in this blog thread, and whether we could challenge in law the police action relating to the woman’s accountant’s case.
Or at least that’s what I think he implies.
#19 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:09 am
As to why admissibility of evidence in court is often garbled up, mixed and jumbled with the other word (relevant) as defined in Oxfort Dictionary is because if one reads through the laws/books on law of evidence, just about every page, chapter, heading and paragraph has this word, relevant, not relevant, relevancy no relevancy often ( not necesarily in every instance) synonymous with admissibility or non admissbility in court. It is such influence on choice of word different from the rest of us. I t is almost a technical jargon if I may use the description.
So in this context how lawyers speak – their term “relevance” has a specialised meaning by the way they are trained.
#20 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:10 am
Neither do I take it as a personal criticism. I take his statement as referring to my comment not being relevant to the discussion here. Criticising someone’s comment as irrelevant to the discussion is not a personal attack. I’ve also critised others for making irrelevant points. I don’t think these criticisms are personal attacks. They are just criticisms of an aspect of the merits of one’s argument or point (other aspects are validity, soundness, etc).
So I did not respond to this particular criticism of him because I take it as a personal attack. I responded to it because I think that the criticism was unjustified and wrong – i.e. while my opinion may be unreliable and inadmissable in a court, it is still relevant to the discussion here.
Since I don’t think that ‘admissable in a court of law’ is synonymous to ‘relevant to a court of law’ (see my explanation in my previous post), I don’t think his criticism should be interpreted in terms of ‘irrelevant to a court of law’.
Of course, I agree with him that my opinion may not be reliable and may not be admissable to a court of law. But that is irrelevant to whether it is relevant to the discussion here.
#21 by ekans on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:14 am
It had been mentioned that the law gives wide discretionary powers to the police, and it seems difficult to prevent this law from being abused.
This law, together with the ISA, must have had its origins from the days of the Emergency when communist insurgency had threatened the peace.
Together with ISA, this law should be ammended because there were cases where the suspects were detained or remanded for an unnecessarily long time until it was found that the investigation could not find sufficient evidence or when the judge threw the case out of the court due to poor prosecution.
More emphasis should now be given to ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The police should only arrest a suspect after they have sufficient evidence to prosecute, not before. Then, there will be less chance of wasting time and the taxpayers’ money in trying to prosecute someone who turns out to be not guilty.
#22 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:14 am
I’m not sure whether ‘relevance’ is used in such a techincal sense in law that ‘relevant to a court of law’ is synonymous with ‘admissable in a court of law’. We need to consult experts or some citations from the legal literature to find this out.
#23 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:18 am
“Before we condemn such a law (evidence) it is structured such to prevent torture/duress as a means of getting evidence; it is also to prevent spouses not trusting each other when intimate confidences may be used against the other in court of law” Jeffrey QC
In the olden days prisoners were routinely tortured to get the truth out of them. These confessions are admissions adverse to their makers and so they must be true. So goes the reasoning. That’s the common law position. Today we do not encourage torture and so we introduce legislation called statutes that excludes such confessions although relevant and reliable. Otherwise confessions are admissible into evidence.
Sometimes the prisoners are tricked into confessing. That too has to be excluded.
It has nothing to do with common sense.
#24 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:19 am
According to one source (which I don’t know whether it is reliable), ‘relevance’ is one of the criteria to determine whether a piece of evidence is admissible. Other criteria include ‘reliability’. If this is correct, then relevance is not equivalent to admissability, since it is one of a criteria to determine admissability.
#25 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:23 am
Undergrad2 says:
‘…Today we do not encourage torture and so we introduce legislation called statutes that excludes such confessions although relevant and reliable. Otherwise confessions are admissible into evidence.’
Undergrad2 seems to imply by this that what is inadmissable could be relevant and reliable. Thus, he seems to think that admissability is not equivalent to relevance.
#26 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:24 am
Husbands sometimes confess their crimes to their wives. This is evidence if it is relevant to the issue. But it is excluded at common law to preserve the sanctity of marriage. It is made admissible only by statutes.
#27 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:27 am
Lee,
The first rule of evidence is that it must first be relevant (to the issue) BUT not all evidence that is relevant is admissible.
#28 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:32 am
Thanks, Undergrad2,
That’s exactly my point. I have been saying that relevance may not be equivalent to admissability, and you have just confirmed to me that they are not equivalent.
I did not claim that whatever that is relevant is admissable. That I did not make this claim should be clear from my suggestion that relevance is ONE OF the criteria to determine admissability. A piece of evidence must also satisfy other criteria besides the criterion of relevance to be admissable.
#29 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:36 am
“….from my suggestion that relevance is ONE OF the criteria to determine admissability..” Lee
No. Not one of the criteria! It has first to be relevant before it could be admissible. The precondition.
#30 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:38 am
There is not one but two barriers – (1) ‘relevance’ as synonymous with admissibility in court in jargon of law of evidence and (2) even after admissbility, there’s second barrier “reliability”, whether how mush weight (in Undergrad2’s technical jargon probative value) one (the court) gives to evidence admitted. An illustration : evidence of an accomplice, he was going along to steal but he didn’t expect one of his 2 other partners to pull a knife on the victim…So his evidence is “relevant” synonymous with admissiblity, how much can we believe him, if so in whole or in parts when he points fingers to mitigate his own wriong doing ? After all he’s an accomplice with past criminal record of telling lies and cheating, quite different for first offender/accomplice with a good and responsible job and references…
The point is the existence of two barriers (1) and (2) does not negate the importance of (1) (the criterion of relevancy synonymous with admissibility in evidence) failing which consideration of “reliability” under (2) does not arise.
In passing on (1), if one googes anyway on evidence, one would find a plethora of references to “relevancy”, “relevant” and the like.
#31 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:38 am
To be evidence it has first to be relevant to prove an issue. But not all relevant evidence is admissible.
#32 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:39 am
‘It has first to be relevant before it could be admissable.’ That’s the meaning of ‘one of the criteria’.
One of the criteria to be an assistant professor at a particular univeristy is having a PhD degree. This is the same as saying that ‘one has to first obtain a PhD before one can be hired as an assistant professor at that university’
#33 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:42 am
My source and Undergrad2 seem to have confirmed that relevance is not equivalent to admissability in law jargon.
Of course, we need expert opinon on this issue (of whether relevance is equivalent to admissability in law jargon)
#34 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:43 am
Once it is admissible then it is a question of weight. In a jury trial that is an issue of fact for the jury – not law for the judge.
#35 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:46 am
Lee,
Put it this way. Relevance is the basic component of admissibility. Evidence is not evidence if it is not relevant. To be admissible it has first to be relevant but not all relevant evidence is admissible.
#36 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:48 am
When I say ‘relevance’ as synonymous with admissibility in court in jargon of law of evidence, I do accept as accurate statement by Undergrad2 that it does not mean all that are relevant are necessarily admissible as evidence in court (“first context”) but it does mean to me all that are admissible in court is necessarily “relevant” as a condition precedent (“second context”).
So I have to qualify the synonymous connection between relevance and admissibility to refer to the second context, not the first…
#37 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:49 am
Undergrad2:
Today at 11: 46.42 (1 minute ago)
‘Lee,
Put it this way. Relevance is the basic component of admissibility. Evidence is not evidence if it is not relevant. To be admissible it has first to be relevant but not all relevant evidence is admissible.’
I agree with you completely. And this is perfectly compatible with my claim that relevance is one of the criteria of admissability.
#38 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:52 am
So you guys think you understand the law of evidence?? In the London Bar Finals, only one out of three would pass. Be it at Trinity or Michaelmas. Good luck.
#39 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:53 am
undergrad2: “… admissions adverse to their makers and so they must be true …”
I thought you almost managed to get back to the topic.
#40 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 11:59 am
So far we have discussed use of the word “relevance” in terms of “legal” relevance, if you will, within the framework of evidence law relating to admissibility in courts etc – not to be confused with the ordinary use of the word “relevance” as it pertains to legal or public issue that we’re all entitled to comment.
#41 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:02 pm
Over to you, OrangUtan!
#42 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:12 pm
The fact that A is a necessary condition of B implies that A cannot be synonymous with or equivalent to B, whatever context you take it. You can say that something that is B is necessarily A. (In this case, B entails A). But the fact that what is A is not necessarily B does not allow one to take A and B as synonymous with or equivalent to each other.
If someone says that my opinion is admissable to a court of law, you can claim that my opinion is relevant to a court of law, since the fact that relevance to a court of law is necessary to admissability to a court of law implies that admissability entails relevance. i.e. something that is admissable must be relevant.
But the converse is not true – it is not true to say that something that is relevant must be admissable.
Thus, if someone says that my opinion is irrelevant to a court of law, it cannot be taken as equivalent to the claim that my opinion is inadmissable to a court of law.
Also, the claim that my opinion is inadmissable to a court of law cannot be taken as the claim that my opinion is irrelevant to a court of law, since the negation of B does not entail the negation of A even when B entails A.
#43 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:14 pm
As I say, my source and Undergrad2 seem to confirm that ‘relevance’ as used in law jargon is not equivalent to admissability.
Of course, we need to consult experts on this
#44 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:41 pm
Yes I agree with Lee Wang Yen that “it is not true to say that something that is relevant must be admissable : for some relevant facts are not admissible in court. Hence it is t rue that admissibility is not synonymous with relevancy as above outlined.
I am trying to understand the following next statement “thus, if someone says that my opinion is irrelevant to a court of law, it cannot be taken as equivalent to the claim that my opinion is inadmissable to a court of law”.
Matter of interest, does this statement tally with what I think – that (1) what is admissible has, to my mind, to be relevant, (2) I am not aware or find it hard to grasp how facts that are irrelevant may however be admissible in evidence?
#45 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 12:49 pm
undergrad2: “Over to you, OrangUtan!”
Hey! I resemble that remark!
#46 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:15 pm
undergrad2 Says:
Today at 09: 07.40 (2 hours ago)
“In some jurisdictions, the police is understandably slow in arresting or even declaring a person to be a person of interest or worse a suspect, because once they do, then the person arrested need not answer any question asked of him by the police. If he requests counsel then one must be provided to him.”
Undergrad2,
Perhaps you would need to put a qualification to the above statement which you made. In the past practice, an ISA detainee would usually be denied a counsel even if he/she did request for a counsel when the detainee was detained under ISA 78(1). The present IGP might have already changed the standing instruction but I am not very sure about it now. Perhaps DAP people would know about it much better because I saw YB Teresa Kok had been denied a counsel also at the initial stage of her ISA detention in 2008.
#47 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:24 pm
HAPPY NEW YEAR
from New York City!!!!
#48 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 1:49 pm
Lee Wang Yen Says:
Today at 12: 14.21 (1 hour ago)
“As I say, my source and Undergrad2 seem to confirm that ‘relevance’ as used in law jargon is not equivalent to admissability.
Of course, we need to consult experts on this.”
Dr. Lee Wang Yen,
I believe your debate with others in this blog will have accomplished nothing in the end if you do not set an outline on whether you want to discuss the matter of facts either in the philosophical perspective or in the legal perspective within the Malaysian legal context. All kinds of statements in relation to matters of facts presented in the discussions will most likely be denigrated into matters of opinion simply because both parties involved in the discussions are not having a set of common references. For instance, Dr. Lee and Jeffrey cannot even reach a consensus on the meaning of “relevancy” in the discussions. I will not be surprised that any facts presented in good faith will eventually be twisted and distorted into irrelevant comments and hence the true/correct conclusion will never be drawn.
I sincerely believe all kinds of academical discussions must be accompanied with the prerequisite of academic honesty. Otherwise, the discussions will only end up with name-calling which is either inconsistent, unsound or incomplete in the sense of formal argument.
#49 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:37 pm
I’m aware that this dispute between Jeffrey and I involves the factual question of whether relevance is used in a sense that is equivalent to admissability in law jargon. That’s why I say we need to consult experts on this question.
I wonder why someone says that I’m not interested in the relevant factual issues.
#50 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 1 January 2009 - 2:53 pm
Of course, irrelevance entails inadmissability. But irrelevance is not equivalent to inadmissability. Irrelevance is only equivalent to inadmissability if there is a bicondontional relation between irrelevance and inadmissability or between relevance and admissability, i.e. if irrelevance entails and is entailed by inadmissability or if relevance entails and is entailed by admissability.
Thus, you should just say that irrelevance entails inadmissability. Entailment is not sufficient for synonymity. So you can’t even say that there is synonymity in your context 2.