Even when you do the right thing, it is still wrong


By NHChan

The other day a friend asked me this question: How is it that some of our judges do not seem to know what is the right thing to do, when all of us know what is right or wrong? I was flabbergasted by the question. It was such a simple question, yet I couldn’t give her a direct answer immediately. I just looked at her and shrugged. It was only much later when I got home that I remember what I have read (you joined the Inns of Court to read law, not study law) as a law student some half a century ago – the case of Dudley and Stephens.

We know it is wrong to kill a human being for food in order to survive although necessity is a defence to the charge of murder.

I shall recount the saga of Dudley and Stephens from Lord Denning’s at Next in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1982, pp 48, 49:

I turn now to a case’ where a judge took away from a jury their right of giving a general verdict of ‘Not Guilty’.
The crew of an English yacht, Mignoneue – three men and a cabin boy – were castaway in a storm 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope and were compelled to put off in an open boat. No water. No food except two one-pound tins of turnips. After four days they caught a turtle. After twelve days they had nothing to eat. On the twentieth day the three men decided for the sake of their families to kill the boy. They said a prayer, killed him, and fed on his body and blood. Beyond doubt they would all have died if they had not kill the boy. As it was, four days later they were sighted by the barque Montezuma. They were picked up almost dead. The Montezuma took them and their boat to Falmouth. On landing there they immediately told the whole story to the Customs officers. The men thought they would be able to return home the same night. But no. They were arrested and charged with murder. They were kept in prison and brought before the magistrates.
Counsel for the Treasury knew that his weakest case was against one of the three, Brooks, who had not actually agreed to participate in the murder. He asked the Falmouth Bench to discharge Brooks so that he might be called to give evidence, and the Bench complied. He asked for the other two, Dudley and Stephens, to be committed for trial for murder. Their counsel asked for them to be let out on bail. He quoted that great criminal judge, Mr Justice Stephen (on the Laws of England (1st edn, 1841) p 101) :

“Homicide is also justifiable from the great universal principle of self-preservation, which prompts every man to save his own life preferably to that of another, where one of them must inevitably perish.”

The magistrates let them out on bail. The decision was received with applause in a crowded court. The men were the objects of intense public sympathy.

I asked Maria – the granddaughter of my wife’s sister who is living with us – “Is it wrong for shipwrecked sailors to kill and eat a shipmate so that they might be able to survive?” She replied, “You don’t kill and eat one’s shipmates so that you can survive. I’d rather die than to do that.” I asked, “Why do you think it is wrong?” She answered, “To know what is right or wrong is in a person’s upbringing.” What a shrewed perception from a thirteen year old, Of course she was right – we do not commit murder to survive. I agree with her and so did Baron Huddleston below, and so did Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and the other judges of the Queen’s Bench who sat with him: see further below. She is certainly in good company.

Since necessity is a defence to the charge of murder, it is wrong for a judge to take away from a jury their right to give a verdict of ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’.

I shall now return to the story as told by Lord Denning, supra, pp 49-50:

The two men were tried at the Assizes at Exeter. The judge was Mr Baron Huddleston. (The title ‘Baron’ was given to the judges of the Court of Exchequer. The judges were not peers and the title ‘Baron’ was equivalent to that of ‘Justice’. The phrase ‘Mr Baron …‘ was often used just as in other courts ‘Mr Justice …‘) Mr Baron Huddleston took a course which had not been taken for nearly 100 years. He had formed a clear view that the men were guilty of murder. He directed the jury that it was murder, and told them they would have to obey his direction. In this he was wrong. It is the right of every jury to give a general verdict of ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’. But he suggested to them that, instead of finding the men guilty of murder they could find a special verdict, that is, set out all the facts and ask the Court of Queen’s Bench to say whether it was murder or not. That is what the jury did. Mr Baron Huddleston himself drew up a statement of the facts.

That was his undoing. By so doing, that is, by asking the jury to find a special verdict instead of leaving it to them to give a general verdict of “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”, Baron Huddleston had angered the general public. But what was so wrong that it made the people angry with the judge? It was wrong because the judge took away from a jury their right to give a general verdict of ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’.

David Pannick described it in his book Judges, p48:

So anxious was he [Baron Huddleson] to ensure the conviction of the defendants, and so concerned was he to deny the jury an opportunity to acquit them, that he persuaded the jury to adopt the unusual device of entering a ‘special verdict’, stating the facts of the case, concluding that as to whether these facts established the offence of murder ‘the jurors are ignorant’, and leaving it to a Court of the Queen’s Bench

Division to rule on that issue.

Now, I return to Denning’s What Next in the Law, p 50:

The case was argued before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and four other judges, including Mr Baron Huddleston himself. They all held that the men were guilty of murder and sentenced them to death. Their finding was supported by all the eloquence at the command of Lord Coleridge.

But the eloquence was to no avail. It “did not receive universal acclaim even in Victorian England” said Pannick in his book, above, p 49, “The Daily Telegraph leader writer cynically observed that judges were perhaps not ideally suited to lecture their fellow human beings on acceptable conduct in conditions of extreme deprivation”.

I append below Lord Denning’s comment in his book, above, p 50:

None of that eloquence [of Lord Coleridge] satifies me that the judges were right. I think that Mr Baron Huddleston ought to have left the decision to the jury without directing them that the men were guilty of murder. He should have left it to them to say whether the men were to be excused by the extreme peril in which they were placed. I have no doubt that, left to give a general verdict, a Devon jury would have found the men ‘Not Guilty’.

Subsequently, Dudley and Stephens were reprieved by Queen Victoria. Their death sentence was reduced to six months’ imprisonment instead. The moral of the story is this: if judges are insensitive to the universal acclaim of the general public, then they might provoke an unexpected reaction from the people.

The next story is a clear example of what I have just said, and it involves the great Lord Mansfield who, as all lawyers know, was one of the great judges of the common law. In fact he was reputed to be the father of the commercial law as we understand them today.

Although Lord Mansfield was morally right, he took the wrong step by ignoring the law of the land

For an account of what caused the Gordon Riots see Lord Denning’s What Next in the Law, pp.23,24:

The greatest tragedy that befell Lord Mansfield was in the Gordon Riots of 1780.

One of the subjects on which he had always shown his enlightened views was that of religious toleration. . . . But he was in advance of his time. On one occasion the City of London elected a man as sheriff They knew he was a dissenter and would not serve. They imposed a fine on him for not serving. Lord Mansfield held that the fine was invalid. It was a piece of persecution. He said:

“Temporal punishment ought not to be inflicted for mere opinions with respect to particular modes of worship.”

The City was so upset that many regarded Lord Mansfield as ‘little heifer than an infidel’.

On another occasion a Roman Catholic priest had said mass contrary to the law of the land. He was tried before Lord Mansfield and a jury. He was undoubtedly guilty as the law then stood. But Lord Mansfield summed up for an acquittal. His final words to the jury were:

“Take notice, if you bring him in guilty the punishment is very severe; a dreadful punishment indeed! Nothing less than perpetual imprisonment !“

The jury found a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’: but many zealous Protestants were scandalised. Rumours were spread abroad that the Lord Chief Justice was not only a Jacobite but a Papist, and some even asserted that he was a Jesuit in disguise.

Lord George Gordon then led the cry of ‘No Popery’ and stirred up the people to violence. The great object of vengeance was Lord Mansfield. The mob marched on his house in Bloomsbury Square. The magistrates wished him to call in the soldiers to defend him. But he refused. The multitude came on, carrying torches and combustibles. They began to batter his front door. He then escaped with his wife through the back door. They burnt his house and all that was in it. His precious library went up in flames.

At p. 25:

The insurrection was quelled. Lord George Gordon was tried for high treason. Lord Mansfield presided at the trial with a jury. Nowadays we should have considered it undesirable, lest he be thought to be prejudiced against Gordon. But Lord Mansfield tried the case with perfect propriety. Erskine defended Gordon. The defence was that Gordon himself had no hand in the violence. It was the ‘lawless herd, with fury blind’ who did it. The jury acquitted Gordon. It was the best thing that could happen.

According to Lord Bingham (see The Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lectures, Bingham: The Law as the Handmaid of Commerce, p. 367):

…..that although Mansfield has left a generally golden reputation behind him, he was in his day the subject of sustained personal vilification perhaps never suffered by any other judge in any place at any time. I refer to the anonymous Letters of Junius, some of which were addressed to him personally and attacked in the strongest terms his partial and pro-government approach in particular to libel trials. During the Gordon riots of June 1780 his carriage windows were smashed by the mob, he was hustled as he left the House of Lords, his house in Bloomsbury Square was burned and his library destroyed. In comparison with penalties such as these the strictures of the press to which the modem judge is exposed may seem a somewhat moderate affliction.

The great Lord Mansfield sewed as Chief Justice for 32 years.

When I tried Mr Param Cumaraswamy for sedition, I applied the law of the land and called for his defence and I was severely criticised by the international press. But when I acquitted him at the end of the trial, I must have done the right thing because the Attorney-General did not appeal

The trial of Public Prosecutor v Param Cumaraswamy [1986] CU (Rep) 606 was a famous Malaysian example of judicial independence. As you know Mr Cumaraswamy was prosecuted for the offence of sedition. The part which I am going to read is at pp 619-621 where I said, as the trial judge:

Lord Denning (in Freedom under the Law, p 36) has said that “the line where criticism ends and sedition begins is capable of infinite variations. This is when the practical genius of the common law shows itself. The line between critcism and sedition is drawn by a jury who are independent of the party in power in the State”. Lord Kenyon has quaintly said, “a man may publish whatever a jury of his countrymen think is not blameable.”: I have taken the quotation [Lord Kenyon’s] from the speech of Fitzgerald J in R v Sullivan (1868), 11 Cox’s CC 44, 50.

Lord Denning (at p 39, supra) gave an example where the value of a jury is most clearly seen. He referred to the celebrated case of John Miller (1770) 20 State Trials 869 who had printed in his paper The London Evening Post an open letter addressed to King George III by Junius. The government could not identify Junius, and so it prosecuted Miller, the printer, for seditious libel in 1770. To quote from Lord Denning (supra, pp 39, 40): “Lord Mansfield directed the jury that the question of libel or no libel was a matter of law for the Judge, and that the jury was only to decide whether the paper was printed and published. In as much as the paper was obviously printed and published, that direction was in effect a direction to the jury to find Miller guilty. But the jury stood out even against that great Judge.” The jury ignored what was virtually a direction to convict and found Miller Not Guilty. In 1791, Charles Fox proposed a Bill which was seconded by Erskine in the House of Commons which became the Libel Act 1792. The Act says that it was the jury, not the Judge, who has finally to decide on whether a libel was seditious. “A jury may always give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty: and no judge can take away that right from them. Parliament has so declared it.” – said Lord Denning, supra, at p 40.

In this country, we do not have a jury for the trial of sedition cases. Nor do we have

Fox’s Libel Act. But we do have independent judges. The line between criticism and sedition is drawn by a Judge who is indepenent of the party in power in the State. Who cay say which is better – jury or independent judge?

This is what Lord Denning said about the independence of the Judges as being the keystone of the rule of law in The Family Story, at pp 191, 192:

“The keystone of the rule of law in England has been the independence of the Judges. It is the only respect in which we make any real separation of powers. There is here no rigid separation between the legislative and the executive powers, because the ministers, who exercise the executive power, also direct a great deal of the legislative power of Parliament. But the judicial power is truly separate. The judges for nearly 300 years have been absolutely independent. And when I speak of Judges, I include not only the High Court Judges, but also all the Magistrates and others who exercise judicial functions. No member of the government, no member of Parliament, and no official of any government department, has any right whatever to direct or to influence or to interfere with the decisions of any of the Judges. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in the judges, and I would add also the chairman of tribunals when they are independent of the executive, for then they too are judges. It does not depend on the name Judge or Chairman but on the substance. The critical test which they must pass if they are to receive the confidence of the people is that they must be independent of the executive.”

These are fine sentiments and I think they are of universal application to all Judges of the common law. They are as much applicable here. If the Judges are to receive the confidence of the people they must be independent of the executive.

In the Australian case of Burns v Ramsley (1949) 79 CLR 101 there was no jury nor was there Fox’s Libel Act. The case was heard by a stipendiary Magistrate. It came before the High Court of Australia upon a case stated by Mr Stanley Wilson, Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Brisbane. In that case, an Australian communist said that “in a war with the Soviet Union, the Australian communists would fight on the side of the Soviet Union” or words to the like effect. It was held that the words were seditious.

Latham CJ said, at p 108:

“It is not necessary, in the present case to consider the common law as to sedition. The appellant was charged with an offence against the statute – uttering seditious words – s 24D. Section 24B provides that seditious words are words expressive of a seditious intention, and the case of the prosection depends upon whether or not the words proved to have been uttered express the intention described in paragraph (b) or (d) of s 24A (1) (see Wallace- Johnson v The King [1940] AC 231).”

“That ease [Burns v Ramsley] was very much on the border line; as was shown by the fact that the High Court of Australia was evenly divided on the point.” said Lord Denning (Freedom under the Law, pp 44, 45). As in Burns v Ramsley, in the present ease the line between what is seditious and what is not seditious is drawn by a Judge. In the United Kingdom, it is drawn by a jury. If the Judges are independent, as they are in Australia and in this country, then there is nothing to fear – the rule of law is preserved. It is then the province of the Judge to hold the balance between the competing interests.

To cut a long story short I shall go straight to the verdict. At pp 623-625, I said:

To be seditious the words uttered must have a tendency to achieve one or more of the objects specified in s 3(1).

The question is, did the words uttered by Mr Cumaraswamy have a tendency –

“3(1 )(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State.”

According to paragraph (d), words which are capable of raising either discontent or disaffection among the people are seditious.

Disaffection”: I shall start with “disaffection”. Disaffection, in the context of sedition, does not mean the absence of affection and regard, it means disloyalty, enmity and hostility: see per Latham CJ in Burns v Ramsley [1949] 79 CLR 101, at 109. See also Dixon J in the same case at p 115:

“Disaffection is a traditional expression but it is not very precise. It means an estrangement upon the part of the subject in his allegiance which has not necessarily gone as far as an overt act of at reasonable nature or an overt breach of duty. It supposes that the loyalty and attachment to Authority, upon which obedience may be considered to depend, is replaced by an antagonism, enmity and disloyalty tending to make government insecure.”

I can say at once that the statement did not have the tendency to incite Or to raise disaffection among the people. In my judgment, the statement did not contain words which were capable of advocating or encouraging the people to disloyalty. There was no tendency in the words which could create antagonism, enmity and disloyalty among the people to make the government insecure.

Discontent”: I turn now to the word “discontent”. Discontent means dissatisfaction. FitzgeraldJ said in R v Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox CC 44, at p49:

“Every man is free to write as he thinks fit, but he is responsible to the the law for what he writes; he is not, under the pretense of freedom, to invade the rights of the community, or to violate the constitution, or to promote insurrection, or endanger the public peace, or create discontent, or bring justice into contempt, or embarass its functions.” (emphasis supplied)

And at pp 56, 57, the Judge said:

“I concur with the Counsel for the defendant that, if the law of [seditious] libel was carried out in the full strictness of its letter, it would materially interfere with the freedom of the press. Hence a great deal depends upon the forbearance of Government, the discretion of Judges, and, above all, on the protection of juries. For instance, it is open to the community and to the press to complain of a grievance. Well, the mere assertion of a grievance tends to create a discontent, which, in a sense, may be said to be sedtious. But no jury, if a real grievance was put forward, and its redress bona fide sought, although the language used might be objected to – no jury would find that to be a seditious libel. It might be the province of the press to call attention to the weakness or imbecility of a Government when it was done for the public good. How closely that trenches on the law of sedition; and yet such writing, when bona fide, would receive protection from a jury.”

But there is no jury to try sedition cases in this country. It could be said that an English jury could feel it in their bones if an assertion of a grievance or complaint which tends to create a discontent is seditious or not. Also, they do not have to give reasons for their verdict. But a Judge does not enjoy this luxury. A Judge, on the other hand, has to give reasons for his decision. He has to say why he thinks a speech has a tendency to wise discontent among the people. If he did not think so, he has still to say why he thinks the speech did not have a tendecy to raise discontent. Put in another way, the Judge has to ask himself whether or not he is satisfied that the speech was likely to create discontent or dissatisfaction among the people.

Mr Cumaraswamy says that his statement was an open appeal to the Pardons Board – urging them to exercise their powers uniformly so that the people would not be made to feel that the Board were discriminatory…….

Would those words [uttered by Mr Cumaraswamy] be likely to create discontent or dissatisfaction among the people? This is how Fitzgeral J asked of the jury in Sullivan at p 53:

“Without defining sedition further than for the purposes of this trial, I have to tell you if you, in your honest judgment, come to the conclusion that these publications, or any of them, are calculated and intended to … create dissatisfaction, … then they are seditious libels. I do not think I can put the matter plainer than that.”

Where there is no jury, a Judge has to ask himself if it is in his honest judgment that the statement was likely to create dissatisfaction among the people. If it is likely to do that then the statement is seditious. If in his honest judgment he does not think that the words were likely to create dissatisfaction among the people, then he has to find that the words are not seditious. In my judgment I do not think that the words which were used to point out to the Pardons Board that the people should not be made to feel that the Board was discriminating between Mokhtar Hasim and Sim Kie Chon are words which were likely to creat discontent or dissatisfaction among the people.

Further, the statement was not likely to create such sentiments against Authority – a requirement which I feel is implicit in the definition of the words “discontent” and “disaffection”. “Disaffection” means disloyalty, enmity and hostility against Authority. In the same way, “discontent” means dissatisfaction against Authority. Therefore, “to raise discontent or disaffection” among the people means to create discontent or disaffection among the people against Authority. Consequently, the assertion of a grievance or complaint which tends to create discontent must be directed at Authority for it to be seditious.

I do not think it can be said that the statement was likely to create discontent among the people against Authority. In my judgment, I do not think that there was such a feeling against Authority among the people. “Authority” in this regard means the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Rulers, the Government and the administration of justice.

I found Mr Cumaraswamy Not Guilty and I acquitted and discharged him. That was in 1986. How things must have changed since then if we look at the antics of recent events.

Conclusion

Remember what little Maria told me when I asked her how she bows what is right or wrong, and she replied, “To know what is right or wrong is in a person’s upbringing.” I wrote in the preface of the second edition of my book this passage:

Lord Denning inherited his compassion for those who have been unfairly and unjustly treated. He was a draper’s son with a passion for justice: a desire to do right. All those other ordinary folk who come from decent and law abiding homes would have well brought up children who could likely be the ones with integrity. People are generally law abiding. The family background of the person is important. For instance, the son of a robber, burgler or smuggler would likely be dishonest. Beware also of the children of eon men, forgers, thieves and others of their kind and ilk. The son of a public servant who has been living beyond his means, would more likely be on the fiddle. What I am trying to say is this, the upbringing of a person is very important if we looking for a person with integrity. A man’s character is shaped by his upbringing: he is raised to know between right and wrong behaviour.

  1. #1 by SpeakUp on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 11:31 am

    Its sad a man with a brilliant mind has to retire because of his age. Its truly sad that his wealth of knowledge is now only good for articles and cannot make much change to the Judiciary.

  2. #2 by Ramesh Laxman on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 11:38 am

    Right and Wrong. Very easy. When you do what is right you want to tell the whole world. When you what is wrong you do not want anybody to know about it.

  3. #3 by LBJ on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 12:05 pm

    This is a towering Malaysian. His intellect, his experience and his humanity tower far above the current judges we are reading about.
    The Lingamgate judges are a shame to the country.

    I am afraid we may not see another great man like him coming in the future. Not with our education system. Not wiht our political system.

  4. #4 by peter sng on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 12:12 pm

    My suggestion is that in future for such Forum, the maximum no. of Speakers should be limited to 4. It gives ample time for each Speaker to say his/her piece.
    Anyway thanks a lot for the LIVE webcast and especially for inviting HE NH Chan which most of us hear him for the 1st time.

  5. #5 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 12:47 pm

    //This is a towering Malaysian. His intellect, his experience and his humanity tower far above the current judges we are reading about.
    The Lingamgate judges are a shame to the country// – LBJ

    One has to be honest whether we understand what the ex judge is saying.

    Right now, I suspect the intellect of a judge is measured directly against whether he reasons, opines and argues in support of a decision or position that we like or dislike. [Anything that strikes a resonant chord with our sentiments dreams and hopes has to be true and correct (whether we really understand it or not – and vice versa), such is the way our mind and perception play tricks on us!]

    N H Chan will be a towering intellect in an Opposition forum/blog like this one but otherwise in a pro government/BN blog/forum.

  6. #6 by AhPek on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 1:04 pm

    ‘This is a towering Malaysian.His intellect,his experience and his humanity tower far above the current judges we are reading about.’. LGJ

    Couldn’t agree with you more.In fact he reminds me of another towering Malaysian the late Justice Tun Mahammed Suffian Mohd Hashim,Malaysia’s Fourth Lord President and also the first Asian Lord President here.One can hardly find people like them in today’s Malaysia for they are almost like a dying breed!

  7. #7 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 1:16 pm

    “The family background of the person is important. For instance, the son of a robber, burgler or smuggler would likely be dishonest. Beware also of the children of eon men, forgers, thieves and others of their kind and ilk. The son of a public servant who has been living beyond his means, would more likely be on the fiddle. What I am trying to say is this, the upbringing of a person is very important if we looking for a person with integrity. A man’s character is shaped by his upbringing.” – NH Chan

    Dear Judge, Don’t visit upon offsprings the sins of their parents or one of them.

    Even if upbringing is a factor, it depends on which parent is dominant influence . Father may be forger but the mother may be a saint and if the child grows up influenced more by his mother, and also the father to the extent how not to be like him, he would probably turn out OK.

    Whilst upbringing has a part to shape a person’s character – many other factors too: eg the individual’s own development, peers influence and life experiences and certain other intrinsic unique characteristics of a person different from his parents. To know what is right or wrong may depend on other factors than just a person’s upbringing.

    If you were a fair judge, you would give a person his right to assessment based on his own merits and what those who know him say of him than the character of his parents, or even his upbringing deduced unfairly from what his parents were.

    Hence it is clear that the converse is equally not true. Those who come from families of pedigree and whose father evinced great achievement – even attaining the highest of political and public office – even if we assume they have all advantages and best of upbringing compared to a draper’s son like Denning- does it necessary mean the upbringing must be so good that their children will have impeccable integrity?

    Just look across the political aisle / divide to see if your line of thinking is sustainable….

  8. #8 by SpeakUp on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 1:35 pm

    Integrity is something infused into a person. Up bringing and perhaps its latent too. In the UK you can see punks but they know how to use Ps and Qs and they actually do hold doors for you if you are like 3-4 steps behind. In Malaysia, who cares. This is the general public in Malaysia.

    I wonder when it will change?

  9. #9 by Loh on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 1:36 pm

    ///People are generally law abiding. The family background of the person is important. For instance, the son of a robber, burgler or smuggler would likely be dishonest. Beware also of the children of eon men, forgers, thieves and others of their kind and ilk. The son of a public servant who has been living beyond his means, would more likely be on the fiddle. What I am trying to say is this, the upbringing of a person is very important if we looking for a person with integrity. A man’s character is shaped by his upbringing: he is raised to know between right and wrong behaviour.///– NH Chan

    Lao Tze would have said the same thing if the society had been that complicated during his time.

    In a society governed by government practicing divide and rule, the people are divided into two groups, the suppressed and the bullies. The suppressed tend to develop the urge to see fairness and justice. But others found the excuse of self-preservation like the female toad in Perak and who joined the thieves. The bullies found life to be enjoyable with the simple rule of forming a majority. No amount of teaching in civic or religious lessons would mould them to differentiate between right and wrong.

    NEP stands in the way of the right upbringing of the people in the country. Has Malaysia a future with more than half its people wrongly brought up since the advent of NEP, as fine-tuned for discrimination starting from TDM regime?

  10. #10 by melurian on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 1:37 pm

    \For instance, the son of a robber, burgler or smuggler would likely be dishonest. \

    so does this mean son of an indian will always be drunkyard, thieves and losers, son of cina will always greedy, apathy, cheater and money-minded and son of malay will always religious zealot and lazy due to \culture\ and different race upbringing. nice stereotyping, welcome to malaysia, judge…….

  11. #11 by -ec- on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 2:22 pm

    By simply googling what is the philosophy of right and wrong, i came across some 6 benchmarks of how to distinguish right from wrong–just to share:
    ================
    1) submit the action to the test of common sense.
    Sense of the common people. We all has common sense that snatching power by physical force of the police unconstitutionally is not right. Yes, the BeEnd lacks common sense.

    2) submit the action to the principle of the golden rule of ‘do unto others what you want others to do unto you.’
    -You slap the other person when you dont want others to slap you (wrong!)
    -You steal other people’s belongings (e.g. a state) when you dont want others to steal yours (Wrong!)
    -You ‘remove-by-force’ other people’s MB/speaker when you dont want other people to sack your MB/speaker (Wrong!)

    3) submit the action to his best self, ‘this above all to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.’
    Translation: If you follow the principles you believe in, as strictly as the day always follows the night, then you will always be truthful and honest with other people.
    BeEnd has no best self, no principles… and no shame.

    4) submit the action to the test of publicity.
    If you scare that your action will be known to others that cause you lose face, lose trust, lose dignity and lose integrity, then it is WRONG!
    e.g. banning the screening of the VCD of Siva being dragged out of the Dewan will make BeEnd the laughing stock of the whole world. Right or wrong? you say.

    5) submit the action to the test of his most admired personality.
    Gandhi and Mandela are admired personalities, but calling yourself Gandhi or Mandela does not make your action right!

    6) submit it to the test of foresight.
    ‘Foresight is enhanced by a humble disposition to think through an action before doing; considering all dimensions of a situation before taking a step. Foresight is enhanced by searching for wisdom; wisdom is acquired by objective appreciation of events now and then. Foresight is thwarted by sensitivity and emotional attachment to situations.’
    BeEnd is arrogant, short-sighted, stupid, oversensitive and like to play emotion games.

    Who is right and who is wrong?

    source: http://www.socyberty.com/Philosophy/A-Philosophy-of-Right-and-Wrong.120782

  12. #12 by Godfather on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 2:28 pm

    Based on NH Chan’s reasoning, BN is finished. Their leaders are all liars, cheats and thieves. However, I won’t go so far as to crucify all their children and their children’s children.

  13. #13 by Raja Chulan on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 2:36 pm

    Dear Readers,

    I posted the following comments yesterday and wish to do the same here again………..

    I hope Sultan Azlan will be wise enough to remedy his previous mistake. He should know very well that in a Democracy, the will of the people is supreme.

    He (Sultan Azlan) should also very well know how the support of the 2 ex-PKR ADUNS were obtained by BN. It is well known to all that they were both trapped into an act of corruption and then enticed to accept a deal to support BN in order to save themselves!

    The believe that BN has a majority in the Perak state assembly is therefore seriously defective. I am alarmed that the Sultan can ignore this. The Rakyat, are no ex-Lord Presidents but they all know this simple fact. The rakyat are therefore very angry with the Sultan on this, I am sure.

    To me the ball is now at the Sultan’s court so to speak.
    It is only right that the Sultan undo what the mess he had done in the first place to Perak and its democracy.

    Cheers,
    Raja Chulan

  14. #14 by sightseeing on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 3:07 pm

    //the upbringing of a person is very important if we looking for a person with integrity. //
    NH Chan

    What NH Chan said is generally right, study the following cases of father and son:

    Mahathir and Mukhriz

    Tun Razak and Najib

    Syed Jaafar Albar and Syed Hamid

    Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong

    Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng

    The only exception is Tun Hussein Onn and Keris Hishammuddin

  15. #15 by Loh on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 3:38 pm

    ///breaking news updated 1.25pm The prime minister said he was willing to hold talks with Pakatan Rakyat to resolve the on-going Perak crisis but he had set a number of conditions.MORE
    BN not afraid to face polls
    Dissolution is up to the sultan
    xxxxxxxxxxxx
    updated 1.59pm The former premier is against a snap state election to solve the Perak crisis as the outcome was a foregone conclusion.MORE
    Waste of money too
    Okay to talk with Pakatan ///—Malaysikini

    Najib pretends that snap election can only be called if the Sultan initiated it.

    TDM said sometime ago that it was not correct to have a second MB, but he has just said that he was against a snap election in Perak. If he was sincere in his opinion on the appointment of the second MB for Perak snap election is the only way to resolve the crisis, assuming he had a clear mind of what is right or wrong. TDM’s objection to snap election was because BN would lose. It shows therefore that elections called during his time did take place because TDM had ensured most probably through unfair means that BN would be returned to power. His opinion on snap election was not based on what was the proper way to resolve Perak crisis. He knew only how to use power to unfair advantage and since BN MB retained power despite being told that Zambry was illegitimate MB, TDM considered it a win-win situation for BN through blackmail. That was why TDM removed the power of the court during his time.

    TDM’s comment came only 30 minutes after Najib. Had he been appointed chairman of the presidential council of UMNO, Najib’s statement would have to be cleared through him before he announced it .

    The action by Najib would tell us conclusively whether TDM was the backseat driver.

  16. #16 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 4:08 pm

    Hey, Jeff Ooi figured out that the Court of Appeal judge was mentioned in the V.K Lingam tapes!!!!

  17. #17 by grace on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 4:46 pm

    My greatest respect, Justice Chan.
    You rally educate us, simple folks on laws.
    It is so sad that many ofour judges lack your ability andtalents. Those who are fiercely independent never got promoted.

  18. #18 by setiawan on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 5:06 pm

    “Its sad a man with a brilliant mind has to retire because of his age. Its truly sad that his wealth of knowledge is now only good for articles and cannot make much change to the Judiciary.”
    =========

    It was a calculated and deliberate effort to flush out thinking and learned and independent judges, in order to fill the whole judiciary with

    Liars Lagi Buruk –

    the lackeys of the UMNO.

  19. #19 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 7:22 pm

    I believe that most people have an inherent notion of what is right or wrong.
    But of course if one embarks on the road of corruption, the feeling of right and wrong can become desensitized.
    If a politican is corrupt, he will believe that anything he does to stay in power can be justified as some of our politicians have been around for too long operating without principles.

  20. #20 by TomThumb on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 7:48 pm

    When you talk about right and wrong, you cannot but define it as God’s presence in Man – conscience.

  21. #21 by TomThumb on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 7:54 pm

    NH Chan is fast losing his marbles.

  22. #22 by gopi on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 9:14 pm

    Since BN government says that it would waste of money to hold The Perak state snap election to determine who has finally the majority in the DUN. I suggest that we Malaysian start a donation drive to hold this election so that the dust settles finally.

  23. #23 by Lee HS on Thursday, 14 May 2009 - 10:50 pm

    UMNO’s civilisation has not produced saints like Confucius and Buddha. So we cannot expect much substance out of them.

  24. #24 by Onlooker Politics on Friday, 15 May 2009 - 1:30 am

    “What I am trying to say is this, the upbringing of a person is very important if we looking for a person with integrity. A man’s character is shaped by his upbringing: he is raised to know between right and wrong behaviour.” (N H Chan)

    I beg to differ.

    A fair judge shall not rely upon human genome in order to come about a judging decision on whether an alleged is found guilty or not guilty. Nor shall he rely upon the perception about an alleged’s upbringing to judge on whether the alleged is a good guy or a bad guy.

    In religion, while most people believe in the doctrine that the wrath brought on us by God is the causal effect of the generational sins of the older generation, the religious doctrine does also provide a pardon channel for the forgiveness of God be given to those who did show a true repentance to God in relation to the sins which had been committed by the older generation. If we are able to see a lot of born again Christians, new Islamic converts, new Buddhist converts, new Confucian followers, and etc. living around us, then there must also be a lot of good reasons which N H Chan can find in order to get a criminal alleged acquitted even if the alleged is to be found to have been brought up in a family where both their parents were convicted criminals in their personal track records and in family history.

    Sometimes, the upbringing of a person can also cheat us!

  25. #25 by Godfather on Friday, 15 May 2009 - 9:54 am

    NH Chan is making a generalisation, but he should have used the words “by and large” or “usually but not always”. It is generally true that characters are shaped by circumstances surrounding the individual, but I am sure that there are exceptions.

    If you look at our own backyard, it would be hardpressed to find an UMNOputra’s children who have done something good for the rakyat – Marina Mahathir comes to mind as a fair-minded, level-headed activist, but her brothers had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money, and their lifestyles are legendary. The recent photos of Nazri’s kid and Najib’s kid boozing away is another indictment on the life of children brought up by the “easy” money under the NEP. Then there’s Ling Liong Sik’s son squandering away billions of banks’ money, and the banks simply did not, or would not, pursue him. Then there’s Semi Value’s son embroiled in a controversy over the death of his PA, and sounding more and more like his father every day.

    Yes, NH Chan should not have made such a sweeping generalisation, but the evidence points to the fact that his statement is largely accurate.

  26. #26 by lesliefkh on Friday, 15 May 2009 - 10:33 am

    need to ask on how to logout from here. a new blogger..learning! tq

  27. #27 by Godfather on Friday, 15 May 2009 - 10:47 am

    Isn’t there the logout command after your log-in name ? If you didn’t log in, but are just browsing, you don’t need to log out.

  28. #28 by grace on Friday, 15 May 2009 - 11:09 am

    Justice Chan,
    A question , not relatred to you article, if you care to explain.

    Is Gasnesan legally elected as the speaker of Perak Assembly in view if the meyhod Sivkumar was physically removed from the chair.?
    My argument is that Sivakumar is still the speaker.
    Because at the onset of the assembly, those suspended ones including Hee and the rest are suppose to leave the hall.
    Thus technically BN did not have the number and Hee Yit Fong was already disqualified from the sitting. There she cannot act as the speaker, right!
    To me, the whole assembly is illegal.

  29. #29 by Joshua Tan Kok Hauw on Friday, 15 May 2009 - 1:30 pm

    Malaysians facing court cases should be given the chance again to make the appeal to the Privy Council(court of UK) as the justice will be seen to be done.

  30. #30 by TomThumb on Friday, 15 May 2009 - 10:04 pm

    why depend on some grumpy old men long past their prime in another country to tell you if you are right or wrong?

You must be logged in to post a comment.