However a 1000 years ago Kung Sun Lung (also spelt Gongsun Long) took the paradoxical and elliptical view, a horse denoted a shape of a kind of animal, white a colour : therefore describing a colour, one did not describe a shape of that animal! The idea of a horse includes colour (whether white, brown or black), but not a specific colour like whiteness.

Western philosophy has already attempted to cover that paradox by studying definitions versus description, with Bertrant Russell bifurcating further the latter into definite and indefinite descriptions.

The earlier debate on “relevance” or “admissibility” might have first started along lines relating to definitions/descriptions but soon it was no more, once clarified, as no one disputed meanings/definitions of the words “relevance” or “admissibility” (in legal or grammatical sense).

It had become more debate on syllogisms. Like for example, if “r” denotes relevance and “a” denotes admissibility, is “r” the same as “a” when:-

1. all that is a is also r but as far as r goes, only a part of r is a and not the rest of r (r being larger boundary than a); or
2. if some of each of r and a are similar whilst rest of r and a are different from each other.

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.

I wonder why someone says that I’m not interested in the relevant factual issues.

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.

from New York City!!!!

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.

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?

Of course, we need to consult experts on this

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.

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.

So I have to qualify the synonymous connection between relevance and admissibility to refer to the second context, not the first…