Gani owes public apology to Batu Caves 31 for travesty of justice of total incarceration of 403 days


The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail owes the Batu Caves 31 who were unjustly incarcerated for 13 days and their families a public apology for the sufferings and hardships they should not have been made to go through.

Gani’s explanations why he dropped the charges of attempted murder against the Batu Caves 31 in the Shah Alam Sessions Court underline the grave injustice which the Attorney-General had caused the 31 with the ridiculous charge of attempted murder and collective punishment of the 31 with the denial of bail for 13 days, resulting in a number of victims losing their jobs.

Two reasons had been given by Gani.

Gani said: “We can’t pinpoint who exactly did it or rather who was the one who threw the brick at the person who was badly injured”. If so, why did he charge the 31 with the capital offence of “attempted murder” with the maximum sentence of 20 years’ jail and fine, and what’s worse, denying bail to them for 13 days on a completely baseless contention of their being threats to national security!

Secondly, Gani said the 31 men were initially charged not because they were alleged to be Hindraf members but because they had committed an offence by participating in an illegal assembly.

Gani said all the 31 men had signed letters opposing Hindraf and claimed they were not Hindraf members. They also said they would never take part in any illegal assembly in the future.

This is a very serious contradiction. If the 31 were not charged because they were Hindraf members, why should any subsequent claim that they were not Hindraf members have any bearing on their cases?

The Batu Caves 31 had already been harshly and unfairly punished although they were innocent of the charge of attempted murder, as they were all incarcerated for 13 days each, which work out to 403 days of jail for the 31.

The least Gani should do is to tender a public apology to the Batu Caves 31 and their families for this travesty of justice and abuse of prosecutorial powers in his unfair and unjust handling of cases of the Batu Caves 31.

  1. #1 by DarkHorse on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:01 pm

    Clearly this AG got caught in his own web of lies spun at the behest of his boss!

  2. #2 by mendela on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:28 pm

    Every day the only things the regime and its cronies do are to tell lies, nothing but telling lies!

    On the other hand, the “mainstream media” is not doing any meaningful investigative reports but only helping the regime to spread lies.

  3. #3 by Count Dracula on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:33 pm

    This AG! Has he no shame??

  4. #4 by toyolbuster on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:34 pm

    Apology will not suffice. This will embolden him and the bumbling PM to use this same dirty tactic to suppress or threaten anyone who dare to rally against them. If we have the resources to challenge them in court, an international one if need be, or something to that effect, we may be able to stir some s–t into them. They are just getting away with “murder”. No one is above the law, not even the AG

  5. #5 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:35 pm

    The whole exercise is a show of power or abuse of power and bullying tactic, especially against minorities. “We can do what we like. What can you do?” mentality and message.

    To expect an apology from AG and others is like expecting the sun to come out from the west.

    Can voters change the scenario in the next GE?

  6. #6 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:38 pm

    By saying they were not Hindraf members and then they signed a letter opposing Hindraf and claiming they were not members, clearly gives ground for investigation of abuse of power by AG/police.

    The IPCMC as originally recommended was meant to prevent these kind of stuff.

    AG don’t have to apologize, he has to resigned for abuse of power.

  7. #7 by Carol Reema on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:48 pm

    Dear Friends,

    A silent prayer will be held at the Batu Caves Temple on the 20th of December, 2007 (Thursday) by 08:00hr in order to pray for the safety and release of our 5 top leaders of HINDRAF namely P.Uthayakumar, M.Manoharan, R.Kengadharan, B Ganabathi Rao and Vasanthan who are now detained in Kamunting Detention Centre under the Internal Security Act (ISA)

    Please join us and show the world that we are no racist. WE NEED YOUR SUPPPORT!!! WE WANT JUSTICE!!!

  8. #8 by lakshy on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 1:53 pm

    Hang on a sec…..what does being a Hindraf member or not have anything to do with the charge? Is Hindraf an outlawed society or illegal organisation in Malaysia? Or is it a Terorist Organisation?

    Is the AG saying that if they were Hindraf members, they would be charged for murder? Even though his excuse in releasing them is that it is hard to pin point who threw the brick? What a spin from this AG! How do people get suckered by such statements?

    Probably if you check the brick for fingerprints, the ones you will find is not from any of the 31 + 30. Probably the fingerprints, if any, will belong to Hairy’s or Semi Vaue’s henchmen. Have our famed CSI team been at work yet?

    The crowd was a peaceful crowd AG.

    Why were they herded into Batu Caves, and then locked in? Next when they were already locked in, and couldn’t escape, why did the police spray them with water cannons followed by tear gassing them?

    It was a brutal show of force that should be questioned. And if it was to provoke a reaction form the Indians, I am proud that the Indians were not provoked into committing violence. But yes, igp, and ag and home minister, you have trampled on their rights, and still continue to make a farce of justice. And for this you will have to answer, eventually.

  9. #9 by taxpayer on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 2:24 pm

    For national interest bail was denied. For national interest the murder charge was dropped. This bloke will be made a high level judge soon. God help Malaysia!

  10. #10 by sj on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 2:50 pm

    How do we punish this guy? I wont take apology from this guy.

  11. #11 by Godfather on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 2:59 pm

    A clear case of mala fide prosecution and the 31 victims should sue for damages. Obviously the chances of success are slim given that our judiciary is so tainted, but it is good to keep the issue on the boil.

    I can hear Nazri saying that the government has had to feed the 31 Indians for 13 days, so why the fuss ? The generosity and magnanimity of this government are soooooo exemplary – so say the BN parties and the mainstream press.

  12. #12 by teluyalam on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 4:05 pm

    Godfather, Definitely the magnamity of the government is exemplary. it has made a large number of UM..NOTs rich and successful(?). Of cos, this morally corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and hypocritical government has absolutely no idea on how to deal with the situation in a positive manner. Hence the framing of suspects, ISA and other moronic actions. Unbelievable, unreal and shallow. Please sign the petition to release the 5. And pls, use ur vote wisely.

  13. #13 by Jong on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 4:08 pm

    Let’s hang him!

  14. #14 by Cinapek on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 4:15 pm

    This comedy of errors continues.

    This is what you get when you have people who does things without going through a proper thought process or, maybe in this case, incapable of thinking through a problem.

    If you are sure of what you are doing there will be no need to backtrack and flip flop. And even if you do change your mind, a properly thought out act would allow you to explain and justify why you change your decision.

    These guys think from the seat of thier pants and make decisions based on political expediencies. First they tell one lie. Then they need to tell two lies to cover that one lie. Next they need to tell four lies to cover that two lies and so on and so forth. As the saying goes, just give them enough rope, sit back and yank once in a while. They will hang themselves.

  15. #15 by smeagroo on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 4:19 pm

    If like that also can become AG then arent we all doomed?

    THe first day when this brainless dude wanna charge them for “attempted murder” many ppl including me already said that the charge wont stick. How the heck is he gonna proof who did it.

    What a MORON!

    And didnt the major newspapers screamed “PAk Lah the merciful”?

    As expected lo. ANother SANDIWARA to make an inept PM look good.

  16. #16 by tidaknama on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 5:42 pm

    Malaysia Semua Boleh… sadly

  17. #17 by TooFree on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 6:47 pm

    This is not the case of the bungling dungu who do not know the law but a clear cut case of bullying those at your mercy. And the stupid pm even tried to claim credit for the whole fiasco. All these bastards should be roasted in hell!!!

  18. #18 by benny on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 7:54 pm

    THIS IS DEMOCRAZY.THIS AG…THE PM/JUDICIARY/POLICE ARE IN A MESS.ARE THEY RUNNING A COUNTRY OR COW BOY TOWN?THEY ARE MAKING EVERY HUMAN CRAZY YAAAAAA.

  19. #19 by AsIseeit on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 7:59 pm

    If what is reported is true, then the AG is in connivance with the govt to intimidate and a create a culture of fear among anyone who wishes to voice their views to the govt. It is important for teh rakyat to realise that as long as we demonstrate and walk on the right side of the law, no govt can do anything to us.

    It seems clear to me from the very beginning that this case will fail for the lack of evidence. The AG of all person should have known. So why did he allow the case to proceed? What kind of ulterior motive is there? In fact, my guess is that there is sufficient evidence for police violence from what has been shown in You-tube instead.

    It looks like the murder charge is a ploy to create an atmosphere for people to think of the demonstration and Hindarf as a terrorist movement, which many right-thinking people do not think so.
    It is then a step away to move to use the ISA against the Hindraf leaders. Such a ploy is to cause confusion in the minds of the public about the integrity of the people involved.

    The issue seems to me – can the 31 sue the AG for defamation?
    If not, the AG and the govt can use this tactic to intimidate the public.

  20. #20 by Fort on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 10:12 pm

    Gani said: “I can be very strict, but I don’t think this is the right time to be.”

    Does it mean that he can do according to his whims and fancy? When is the right time?

    “When we exercise the law, we have to look at it fairly. It is my judgement that this is the fairest thing to do.”

    He changed his mind. Did he think through properly in the first instance?

    “We can’t pinpoint who exactly did it or rather who was the one who ‘threw the brick’ at the person who was badly injured.”

    He charged the 31 for attempted murder. Then, he can’t pinpoint who. He was caught, he could not establish his case!

    Do you think he is fit to be the AG?

    He made a mockery of himself and the high office he holds. He appears to ‘play play’ or he is insulting the intelligence of the Malaysian publics!

    He is a case of a man who had been promoted to the level of his incompetency. A good result of people who had not gone through the rigours of selections. He did not get his position of AG by merits. He is the result of NEP.

  21. #21 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 10:12 pm

    One would expect this kind of mistake from a novice lawyer taking charge of his first case but this AG should be sacked or cited for abuse of power.

    Wake up you sleeping BN MPs!
    Those who were denied bail and detained for days should sue the authorities.

    http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2007/12/quality-of-justice-is-strained-in.html

  22. #22 by Fort on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 10:26 pm

    Yes, I think Gani should be sued for abuse of power.

    Castrated for 13 days is no joke! Some have even lost their jobs!

  23. #23 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 10:43 pm

    “The issue seems to me – can the 31 sue the AG for defamation?
    If not, the AG and the govt can use this tactic to intimidate the public.” AsIseeit

    If a case of prosecutorial misconduct can be made against the AG by the victims, the he could be censured by the Bar Council, made to pay a fine and have his practicing certificate withdrawn or suspended for a time.

    But I don’t think you can because those accused are still facing charges. It is not like they were wrongly accused of a crime for which there is no evidence with the kind of veracity required to prove a prima facie case, or/and there is evidence of mala fide and have now been discharged without their defense being called.

    They are still facing charges and have admitted to some of the crimes they have been accused of.

  24. #24 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 10:44 pm

    The accused have yet to be prosecuted.

  25. #25 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 10:46 pm

    castrated for 13 days?
    AG can definitely be sued!

  26. #26 by mendela on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 11:07 pm

    Let’s dun be too hard on Gani, he is just a little poor prideless running dog of UMO!

    Go get the taxi Nazri, Kera Jahat and Bodowi. Quoting TooFree: “All these bastards should be roasted in hell!!!”

  27. #27 by tunglang on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 - 11:19 pm

    The next time you want to participate in an ‘illegal’ assembly, be prepared for GANI without bail. This seems to be an effective method to intimidate any future show of dissatisfaction’ legal or not. All it takes is an absurd reason to put you behind bars until your balls shrivel to nothingness. By then you have no courage to fight on for your rights. Then you will be declared publicly a conscious-cleared repentful turned law abiding nobtizen given a fair treatment of the LAW. Now, who looks good?

  28. #28 by EARNEST on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 12:54 am

    Gani said: “We can’t pinpoint who exactly did it or rather who was the one who threw the brick at the person who was badly injured”.

    In charging 31 persons without solid evidence of attempted murder, the AG had undermined the legal safeguards protecting an innocent person from arbitrary actions by the state.

    The AG has ignored that “The presumption of innocence essentially means that we would rather let ten guilty people go unpunished than punish a single innocent person.”

    Instead, the AG had done the exact opposite of the presumption of innocence. Netted 31 and charged them all for attempted murder; perhaps one of them was guilty of attempted murder. But, which one? Don’t know. Try netting another 30 more to increase the chances of catching the real culprit.

    After stabbing them, oops… maybe should not have stabbed them. Just withdraw the knife, and let them go. See, so merciful.

    Inconsistent application of the charges of attempted murder is somewhat equivalent to arbitrary application.

  29. #29 by Bigfoot on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 12:57 am

    This tragic episode simply underscores the fact that the 31 are mere pawns and playthings in a diabolical political game, of which even the courts are not spared. Satan himself could not have done better.

    The powers-that-be will continue to apply the Law of the Jungle against the 31, or 26 as the case may now be, while singing their song, “It feels so good to be bad” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5fDk3PeJIw. Evil will triumph the day good men and women stop speaking up.

  30. #30 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 1:25 am

    When you are accused of a crime and charged accordingly, the presumption of innocence means that you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the prosecution based on the totality of the evidence to prove that you did the act and had the right mens rea when doing so -failing which it means you are not guilty (though not necessarily innocent). That’s the law of evidence 101.

    To suggest that in a country like Malaysia where the judiciary lacks independence that the prosecuting officer could ignore the common law rule regarding the presumption of innocence is absurd as it stupid. The presumption of innocence applies to all English common law jurisdictions.

    Only statute could reverse the common law rule. Under the ISA that common rule has been displaced and the presumption reversed.

    What the AG may be guilty of is frivolous prosecution or prosecutorial misconduct – but only may be. That depends on the evidence. But the trial proper has yet to proceed. Had the trial proceeded on the charge of attempted murder and there was no evidence to support the charge or exculpatory evidence was not disclosed to the defense which would have freed the accused, and the AG showed bad faith then perhaps there is a case for prosecutorial misconduct.

    Do you know what you’re talking about?

  31. #31 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 1:27 am

    Above message is meant for EARNEST.

  32. #32 by cheeran70 on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 2:31 am

    What a classic example of power abuse by the so-called ‘authorities’ from high place. Is that so easy for 31 people to throw one stone/brick at one policeman and subsequently was charged for attempted murder. 31 people with 62 hands, they threw a stone or a boulder at the policeman??
    And, Lo!! a miracle happened to the extent that all charges related to attempted murder were dropped and all 31 are free again. GOD IS GREAT and I bet HE too must be having his best laughter of millenneum . I bet many persons arrested with similar charges, will be praying fervently for the AG to perform another miracle of similar nature, soon. God Bless all.

  33. #33 by DiaperHead on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 4:09 am

    “Instead, the AG had done the exact opposite of the presumption of innocence. Netted 31 and charged them all for attempted murder” EARNEST

    “Exact opposite of the presumption of innocence”?? What is the “exact opposite” of the presumption? I don’t get it!

    Are you saying that by charging somebody you don’t follow the presumption? Or by charging the HINDRAF 31 of the crime of attempted murder you are changing the presumption?

    How so? Pray tell?

  34. #34 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 4:22 am

    “Habeas corpus applications for four of the five Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leaders detained under the Internal Security Act are due to be entered tomorrow. They contend that the detention order was issued without the usual procedure of requiring the police to detain a person for 60 days to investigate and make recommendations. “ Bernama

    What is there to prevent the police from re-arresting and detaining them the moment they are freed??

  35. #35 by Loyal Malaysian on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 5:55 am

    It is easy for me , who is not among those charged to be cynical of the AG’s actions. Granted the state of our judiciary, how confident can I be that the defendants will be granted a just and fair trial? So, I am happy for those poor 31 demonstrators used as scapegoats by the powers-that-be to send a message of fear.
    The only way things will change for the better is when BN is denied the 2/3 majority in Parliment. We have granted the UMNOputras absolute power for too long and this is the reason for their arrogance and abuse of power.

  36. #36 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 6:07 am

    “The only way things will change for the better is when BN is denied the 2/3 majority in Parliment.”

    Of course,that does not mean that the draconian ISA and other such laws will be repealed. So why are some people talking as if that will stop the abuse of due process?

  37. #37 by laifoong on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 8:13 am

    “After stabbing them, oops… maybe should not have stabbed them. Just withdraw the knife, and let them go. See, so merciful.”

    Only a retard would write this!

  38. #38 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 8:24 am

    Karpal has no alternative when dealing with the arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act but to go on procedural flaws. It would appear that short circuiting Sec. 73(?) and going straight to Section 8 opens the way for the present habeas corpus application. But what good will that do if their freedom is short-lived as it is most likely to be. They will be produced in court, freed and then re-arrested!

    There used to be judicial review but since then some 20 plus amendments have been made to plug all the loopholes.

  39. #39 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 9:24 am

    On the contrary I think it is a smart move by the DAP because it would be reported widely i.e. the freeing of the prisoners and then their re-arrest. It would be a victory for the DAP because it would then expose the excesses of the Abdullah Administration and the fact that nothing is fair and just with Malaysia’s system of justice!

  40. #40 by Putra-Malaysia on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 9:27 am

    Sekejap ada; sekejap tak ada.
    Malaysian are not kids, ‘chipsmore’ kind of illusion doesn’t work but bringing a great shame.
    Politions are still in the Kindergarten. Rakyat are teachers, lets teach them a good ‘lesson’.

  41. #41 by Count Dracula on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 10:54 am

    “In charging 31 persons without solid evidence of attempted murder, the AG had undermined the legal safeguards protecting an innocent person from arbitrary actions by the state.” EARNEST

    Without solid evidence? Undermined legal safeguards? Arbitrary actions by the state?

    I think these words are too much for you to handle.

  42. #42 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 - 9:06 pm

    It is always wise never to bite more than you can chew!

  43. #43 by limkamput on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 2:21 am

    Undergrad2 says: What is there to prevent the police from re-arresting and detaining them the moment they are freed??

    Sure the police can. But I think the point is to keep struggle alive and to garner international attention. It is not the legal process, it is political manoeuvring. Similarly, the attempted murder charge, the withdrawal, and the lighter charge were also manoeuvring. The AG, knowing the minimal safeguard we have on basic human right, used the tactic to cow and intimidate the demonstrators without having to face pressure from the public. I am sure future demonstrators will think very hard if they want to take part again. I believe this has been the AG’s and the government’s agenda all along. By releasing the 31, it is one stone killing two birds. First the government now looks good, being benevolent and sensitive. Second, future demonstrators, beware, you can be charged for attempted murder! I am sure we all know all these. But the target is not really us. The target is future demonstrators and those 31 release recently.

  44. #44 by limkamput on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 2:28 am

    …and those 31 released recently.

  45. #45 by laifoong on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 3:30 am

    again you’re having an argument with yourself!

  46. #46 by laifoong on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 3:32 am

    “I believe this has been the AG’s and the government’s agenda all along.”

    tell me about it!

  47. #47 by shortie kiasu on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 6:20 am

    The public has never had confidence & trust in the legal & judiciary services in the country under the current administration. This travestry is just another one in the many that we can think of.

    Look at the appointment of the new President of the Court of Appeal!

  48. #48 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 6:47 am

    (Specially for the attention of limkamput)

    “Sure the police can. But I think the point is …” limkamput

    The point is when before, the ISA has safeguards like the right to ‘judicial review’, detainees today no longer have that right. Any right to legal recourse has been taken away over the years. No trials and no appeals. Lawyers are reduced to searching for procedural flaws to free those detained which when identified, and in the hands of an experienced attorney, could only provide momentary relief for both detainees and their families simply because procedural flaws could be remedied.

    Karpal Singh did the only thing available to him by applying for the writ of habeas corpus on the basis of what appear to be procedural flaws i.e. the government short-circuiting a procedure required under the Act. By short-circuiting the process the government it is claimed trampled on the rights of due process that all detainees are entitled to under Section 73. The Minister apparently signed the detention order without making an investigation. To the lawyers it is about the right of due process. To the detainees it could spell the difference in living conditions locked up in a police lock-up somewhere in some building at Bukit Aman for 60 days or less, and living conditions behind a depressing wall in Kamunting.

    Decision to detain someone without charge and without trial is obviously a political decision. But the detention must be in accordance with the law and the applicable law in this case is the dreaded Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows detention without charge or trial and without access to counsel. The ISA was passed by Parliament in the 60s and the decision to pass the bill dealing with the threat to national security is a political one. But once passed it becomes law and what has its beginnings in politics spills over to the courts.

    When the HINDRAF 31 were charged with attempted murder most of us knew that the government’s intention was not to try and convict them for the crime of attempted murder but to have bail denied so they could be held in detention using detention to punish them for their role in the illegal assembly. When the AG dropped the charges no one among members of the legal fraternity were surprised because they understood the role politics played in our courts.

    Popular opinion, however, is different. The lawyers looked like they didn’t know what they were doing, the judge clearly biased and was acting under the instruction of his or her political masters; and the Prosecutor just plain stupid!

    The decision to prosecute Anwar for corruption and sodomy is a political decision. Few doubted that the trial was a political trial but rules of criminal procedure and law of evidence were applied and Anwar was found guilty as charged.

    Can you draw the line and say this is where the struggle which is political ends, and law begins?

    What is politics if it is not about conflict management? What is law if it does not provide rules for conflict resolution? Of course, in the final analysis there could be only a political solution to a political problem.

    It is not like we do not know that and we need reminding! We do.

    Is it a mere coincidence that many politicians are also lawyers?

  49. #49 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 6:57 am

    The strength of legislation like the Internal Security Act (ISA) is in its deterrence. Clearly the government is sending its message i.e. it is prepared to use the ISA when it feels it needs to and make no mistake about it!

  50. #50 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 6:59 am

    “It is not the legal process, it is political manoeuvring.” limkamput

    It is both.

  51. #51 by limkamput on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 11:15 am

    Is it a mere coincidence that many politicians are also lawyers? undergrad2

    Yes, yes, precisely, I think you yourself have alluded to laws and legal processes being used for the furtherance of political interest and power if the answer to your question is affirmative.

    I can appreciate where you are coming from. For me, I just feel that political power is the apex. Political power changes things, from constitution (albeit with some limitations and that also is debatable), the structure of government, the governance issues to equity, welfare and environment. I am just too concerned with how to ensure only men and women of right character and attributes are able to come into power and once in power, able to ensure enduring governance structure so that no one individual can ever unilaterally change and abuse power without impunity. I think one big mistake was TDM stayed too long resulting is systematic dismantling of institutions and culture of the government to the level beyond recognition. The present government is just a good student of TDM. I think it is not accidental US Constitution restricts presidential terms to two.

  52. #52 by akarmalaysian on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 2:56 pm

    expecting apology fr gani….forget it.dun forget what kind of protection hes got at the moment.we hv the most dirtiest lot in the government today.even the laws can be turned over against the innocent least to say those who are protected.

  53. #53 by limkamput on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 4:34 pm

    laifoong Says:
    again you’re having an argument with yourself! “I believe this has been the AG’s and the government’s agenda all along.” tell me about it!

    Liafoong, I will not be answering to your challenge. If you disagree or agree, you have to state your position first. If you want me to elaborate, you have to tell me more what exactly you want to know more. Otherwise it is difficult for me to respond.

  54. #54 by Mr Born In Malaysia. on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 5:09 pm

    The police and the government is the same , they do not want to hear the truth , as they are not interested to help the other races or opposition parties.
    Any rallies or protest are the same , people are trying to tell what they are dissatisfied about and the tactics used by the government is to shut their mouths before they can open them , that is why the police set -up road block to deter people from going to the rallies.
    Any Umno or Barisan rally or meeting however big they are , are always allowed as permits are issued by themselves.

  55. #55 by limkamput on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 5:13 pm

    Undergrad2: The decision to prosecute Anwar for corruption and sodomy is a political decision. Few doubted that the trial was a political trial but rules of criminal procedure and law of evidence were applied and Anwar was found guilty as charged.

    It is a hard issue. Now if we know from the beginning the decision to prosecute is a political decision, and the trial is a political trial, how can we ever have confidence to accept that the criminal procedure and law of evidence applied are good? If we have good criminal procedures, how can we have “political decision” to prosecute? Didn’t decision to prosecute and applicable charge part of criminal procedure and law of evidence? In other words, which is of higher order, the political decision to prosecute or the application of criminal procedure? It may sound cocky to you, but to me when there are selective prosecution and selective charges (same offence charged with different legislation), what good is to ascertain whether criminal procedure and processes are followed. It is fait accompli, don’t you think so. I don’t know whether this will help. We can all do right things the right way. We can also do wrong things in the right way. Prosecuting and convicting people with political/evil motives is doing wrong things in the right way – legitimising a wrong or evil act.

  56. #56 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 10:04 pm

    Limkamput, I think the best way forward is for me to answer you point by point.

    1. “If we have good criminal procedures, how can we have “political decision” to prosecute? ”

    How do I answer a question that is loaded with so many issues which should not be allowed to merge into one confused whole?

    When reference is made to criminal procedure(s) in the context of a trial it is always in reference to the CPC or Criminal Procedure Code. A crime is not a crime unless the Penal Code makes it so. Telling lies, for example, is not a crime. Telling lies under oath is. If you’re charged with a crime, criminal procedure requires that you be formally charged – and bail offered if it is a bailable offense. The accused then goes through various stages before the trial proper e.g. the process of discovery, the taking of depositions etc. These are not to be taken lightly because it involves constitutional issues ( and, therefore, political) and in particular your right of due process. Your contention has always been that we should not be interested in the “legal process” – wrong! Because this is both political and legal. Furthermore, why shouldn’t we be interested in the “legal process” if it ignores our rights of due process – of our constitutional rights, of which equal protection of the law is but one.

    You asked (and if I may rephrase) “How could politics have a role in the prosecution of someone accused of a crime if the criminal procedure does not allow for it?” It could – and that is how it could. It could interfere with the process. Could the HINDRAF 31 be charged with the offence of participating in an illegal assembly? Yes – because no police permit was issued. Could they be prosecuted with the crime of murder” No – because nobody died. Could they then be prosecuted with the crime of attempted murder. Yes – because somebody was injured (whether that injury is serious enough to constitute grievous bodily harm is a question of evidence which would have to be addressed during the trial proper). The AG would like us to believe that he thought so. But then had the prosecution gone ahead, nobody (including the AG) should expect it to survive the preliminary hearing. But like you say that is not the intention. The intention is to hold them without bail. You’re right. But as you can see, it is again both legal and political. The AG has allowed politics to interfere with the legal process. The decision to hold them without bail is politically motivated. The law does not justify holding them without bail. Shouldn’t we be concerned with the “legal process” then?

    2. “Didn’t decision to prosecute and applicable charge part of criminal procedure and law of evidence? In other words, which is of higher order, the political decision to prosecute or the application of criminal procedure?

    It is not a question of “higher order”.

    It is a question of you committing a crime and you not committing a crime. It is question of whether you’ve been properly charged and not being properly charged with the crime you are alleged to have committed – if your constitutional rights have not been trampled with, whether you have been given equal protection of the law. It is about you being guilty only as far as the evidence shows.

    The HIDRAF31 appear to have been properly charged though for the dubious crime of attempted murder. They were involved in an illegal assembly in contravention of Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 which requires a police permit (not a moral issue but a legal one). The assembly was to protest against the government for ignoring their problems. It was political in nature though the demonstrators were not members of any political party or organization affiliated to a political party.

    Here is where politics is allowed to interfere with the legal process. The accused were charged with the dubious crime of attempted murder when clearly there was no evidence that they were part of an unruly mob who set upon a police officer with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The AG knew that and we knew the AG knew that. His political master had apparently instructed him to do so – so that bail could be denied.

    So what was politics and political in nature spilled over to the courts. HINDRAF voiced their opposition to the government which is political in nature, and the government used law (the CPC, Penal Code and the ISA) to stifle their opposition. They couldn’t charge the HINDRAF 5 because there was no evidence that they were present. They tried charging them with sedition earlier. They used the ISA to finally detain them because they decided that would be easier. What could be easier then to detain somebody for some crime they were alleged to have committed but not identifying what those crimes are, nor revealing the initial evidence – basically denying them due process.

    Using the ISA against leaders of demonstrators who were merely voicing their opposition to the government is a political decision.

    3. “there are selective prosecution and selective charges (same offence charged with different legislation)…”

    The HIDRAF 31 is not about selective prosecution per se. But earlier decision not to prosecute BERSIH demonstrators for having ignored police warnings makes it appear to be so.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “selective charges”. It is left to the prosecutor to frame the charges and the charges could be in the alternative – or whether to charge at all. As to whether the full weight of the ISA should be brought to bear on the accused is a political decision because the intention here clearly is to stifle all opposition to government policies under the guise of it being a “threat to national security”.

    4. “what good is to ascertain whether criminal procedure and processes are followed. It is fait accompli, don’t you think so.”

    What good?? Are you suggesting that politics or the political affiliations and prejudices of the judge, for example, could change the rules of evidence and criminal procedures as embodied in the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code? Admittedly, the decision affecting some of the legal issues could be tainted by the personal prejudices of the trial judge – yes. But it is not all that easy as some make it out to be. Because the judge has to support his decision based on the law and not on the law as he sees it. Which is why we have appeals.

    I hope you are not suggesting that if the DAP/PKR were to run the government that they should set about changing the definition of the crime of murder and attempted murder etc? There is no need because in the case of the HINDRAF 31 the AG is apparently guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.

    5. “don’t know whether this will help. We can all do right things the right way. We can also do wrong things in the right way.”

    Laifoong would say “Duhhh..!” and that you’re having an argument with yourself here.

    6. “Prosecuting and convicting people with political/evil motives is doing wrong things in the right way – legitimising a wrong or evil act.”

    Allowing political motives to taint the legal process is a corruption of the legal process itself and an abuse of political power.

    It is not a case of legitimizing a wrong. It is wrong.

  57. #57 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 10:21 pm

    “Political power changes things, from constitution (albeit with some limitations and that also is debatable), the structure of government, the governance issues to equity, welfare and environment.” limkamput

    This is what I wrote earlier in case you missed it.

    “What is politics if it is not about conflict management? What is law if it does not provide rules for conflict resolution? Of course, in the final analysis there could be only a political solution to a political problem.

    It is not like we do not know that and we need reminding! We do.”

    Your observation about ‘politics’ is duly noted.

    I don’t know if the works of the like of Pluto and Aristotle on the state of ‘polis’ (the origin of the word ‘politics) would interest you.

  58. #58 by KS R on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 3:56 am

    AG not controlling the position,He is controlled by the remote controller. His statement, I am strict only for poor Indians, Chinese and Malay not top Ministers for example what happen Mongolia mudered case. It is not AG Decision, he just feeling the cap or chair.

  59. #59 by DiaperHead on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 7:04 am

    Well spoken, undergraduate!

  60. #60 by DiaperHead on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 7:05 am

    I don’t think limkamput can understand though!

  61. #61 by laifoong on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 8:39 am

    limkamput cannot write proper english.

  62. #62 by limkamput on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 10:45 am

    Undergrad2,
    Ok, just let it be. I think the problem we have is, to you everything must be precise and exact. For example, criminal procedure and evidence are literal application CPC and Evidence Act, but to me it is the general due process. What good are CPC and Evidence Act if we know that the application of justice is suspected? Anwar (with the so called stained mattress being carried in and out of court room everyday during the trial) and Guan Eng were found guilty under CPC, were they not? To you they are rightly convicted under the law, am I right?

    Please don’t get angry with me. I doubt you really made an attempt to understand what I was saying. May be you are too focused on what you have in your mind and probably think that others have nothing much to add. Seriously, if you can misinterpret what Sdr Lim said on the Indian constituencies, what else can I say? Or may be I really don’t understand your high level English, since your good friends have also said so. Have I seen you asking them to refrain with their continuous uncalled for remarks? When I retaliate, you will most probably say something against me again. When Jong wrote something to rebut unjust criticism against me, you immediately told him/her that the criticism was legitimate. What are you trying to get at? You are the one asking me to look at the writing, not the writer. I hope that is true.

  63. #63 by Mr Born In Malaysia. on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 11:08 am

    The police should use their 100% manpower to solve crimes that are happening every minute like: House break-ins / snatch thieves / broad daylight and night robberies / car thieves / metal windows stealing thieves and catching those addicts taking drugs in the broad daylight behind the city’s building.

    Police manpower should not be wasted catching innocent citizens who merely wanted to voice out their dissatisfactions.

    I personally hated the most police who hide under the the bridge / bus stop / bushes and trees catching tax payers who drive a little fast or those doing a wrong turn or turning on the wrong side of the lane.

    Imagine they station one police behind the bushes with a walkie-talkie catching unaware drivers who happened to be driving on the wrong lane and call out to their partners who are waiting further-up to issue summons.

    There are instances when we are late for our work or appointments and there they are , hiding under the bridges with their speedguns . I have many times seen cars driving dangerously zigzagging their way along the busy Federal highways but never a time with a patrol car behind their trail.
    We have to pay the many-many expansive tolls and at the same time the summons as well.

    To all the police out there , please be citizens caring police and do what a police is suppose to do= catching those thieves out there. If you think you could not earn enough as a police , please source another career , this is a “Democratic” country. The country is govern by the people and not the police or the government if they do not do a proper job.

  64. #64 by Bigfoot on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 11:43 am

    The abuse of power and double standards are clearly shown.

    There are photos on Malaysiakini showing City Hall officials throwing stones and carrying sticks during the temple destruction in Kg. Rimba Jaya. The photos also show injured Indians. Yet not a single City Hall official was charged for anything, let alone charged for “attempted murder”.

  65. #65 by undergrad2 on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 12:13 pm

    “When I retaliate, you will most probably say something against me again. When Jong wrote something to rebut unjust criticism against me…” Limkamput

    I thought Jong’s statement was supportive of you. I felt compelled to respond because the observation by the other poster seemed legitimate to me – not necessarily true though.

  66. #66 by undergrad2 on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 12:20 pm

    A piece of advice to you, limkamput – if I may. You need to have some humor, and accept the rough together with the smooth. Do not feel like everybody is after your blood i.e. out to prove you’re wrong and they are right. It may appear that way but it is not.

    Like I said some time earlier. You sound like my wife! She thinks every time I give an opinion she has to change hers!

  67. #67 by undergrad2 on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 12:27 pm

    “Anwar (with the so called stained mattress being carried in and out of court room everyday during the trial) and Guan Eng were found guilty under CPC, were they not?” limkamput

    They were not found guilty under the CPC.

    The CPC short for Criminal Procedure Code only spells out the procedures which need to be adhered to by both prosecutor and accused, attorney and judge etc. Failure to follow criminal procedures or the rules of evidence could render the trial a nolle prosequi.

  68. #68 by undergrad2 on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 12:34 pm

    Limkamput, you don’t really read what I wrote. So I think, with all due respect, I should stop discussing the same matter over and over again!

  69. #69 by limkamput on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 12:53 pm

    It is fine if you don’t want to discuss further because I think the feeling is mutual. But just want to point out one point you mentioned earlier: You said: “Admittedly, the decision affecting some of the legal issues could be tainted by the personal prejudices of the trial judge – yes. But it is not all that easy as some make it out to be.”

    I disagree with your last sentence. Bias or corrupted judge can if they want to. For example the recent decision of land transfers. Land title obtained fraudulently can be sold and the transaction is considered good so long as buyer is bona file. What kind of decision is that? That is why there was an attempt by the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision of Federal Court. You may think this is funny, but it is true. I hope you read this case and then tell me that CPC and Evidence Act are sufficient assurance for fair trial or minimise abuse.

  70. #70 by limkamput on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 12:59 pm

    should be ….the recent decision on land transfer…

  71. #71 by limkamput on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 6:58 pm

    Undergrad2 says: Allowing political motives to taint the legal process is a corruption of the legal process itself and an abuse of political power. It is not a case of legitimizing a wrong. It is wrong.

    This where I have to scratch my head! Am I right is saying that your position has been no matter how bad the case is, when taken to court, the prosecution, the defense and the court (i.e the judges) must follow the applicable laws as prevail. And the subsequent decision/conviction is “justifiable” because these people are given due process. If this was what you said or alluded to, I totally disagree. My contention is if the state is capable enough to bring a “bad” case to court, the administration of justice, including procedural and substantive laws could also be subverted. I hope I have done justice to the debate.

  72. #72 by undergrad2 on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 11:16 pm

    “I disagree with your last sentence. Bias or corrupted judge can if they want to. For example the recent decision of land transfers. Land title obtained fraudulently can be sold and the transaction is considered good so long as buyer is bona file. What kind of decision is that?” limkamput

    Biased and corrupted judges cannot even if they want to.

    “For example the recent decision of land transfers. Land title obtained fraudulently can be sold and the transaction is considered good so long as buyer is bona file” limkamput

    You need to understand a little bit of law here.

    If you buy a car and then sells it on, the buyer of your car gets what is referred to as a good title provided you bought yours in good faith, for value and without notice. But if you had earlier bought your car thinking that it could be stolen (because of the unusually low price offered to you), though you had no way to confirm it and had no actual knowledge if it had in fact been stolen, then you bought your car in bad faith and the title you get in return for the money you paid is a defective title.. The title you get is only good against the ‘rogue’ seller.

    Now here comes the problem. The buyer of your car who has no knowledge of what had transpired in turn sells the car for value, in good faith and without notice to another buyer – that buyer gets a good title. His title is good as against the whole world. Then the original and real owner of the car whose car was earlier stolen turns up to claim the car.

    Could he do so ? Yes and No. He could get back his car from you but since you no longer had possession, he has no legal recourse and no legal remedy. And this is why. The present owner has a good title because he bought the car for value, in good faith and without notice. Unfair that he could not get back his car? Looked solely from his perspective there can be only one answer – yes.

    The harshness of the common law position is here modified by the law of equity to place a good title in the hands of the buyer who meets the definition of ‘the buyer in good faith, for value and without notice”. If you understand that then you have mastered contract law and the law of trust and equity, law of real property etc.

    It seems grossly unfair that the court would leave the real owner of the car without a legal remedy, that the only recourse the real owner has is against the rogue who stole his car – who is, of course, nowhere to be seen. Here comes the pain. The law has no choice but to allocate blame, and as it is in the public interest to provide security and stability to commercial transactions, it comes down on the side of the last buyer in good faith, without notice and for value.

    The same principles are applied in real property.

    In Malaysia, land law is codified. The NLC or National Land Code works to provide stability in land transactions. Real property is too complex to be left to common law to provide the solutions fair and just to all parties. Students of the NLC would agree with me that the notice requirements are especially stringent. It would be in the interest of the buyer to comply with all the conditions under the Code.

    To return to your statement i.e. “land title obtained fraudulently can be sold and the transaction is considered good so long as buyer is bona fide”.

    That is not true.

    What is true is if you buy your land from a owner (who has to be a registered owner to have title) complying with all the requirements of the National Land Code, you then obtain a good title and once registered in compliance with the NLC is good notice to the world.

    Students studying the NLC speaks of lacuna in the law and the complexities of the concept of indefeasibility of title etc. The strict application of the National Land Code without reference to the real intent of Parliament has led to criticism but the truth is until the offending provision in the Code is amended the law remains.

  73. #73 by undergrad2 on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 11:22 pm

    I need to correct this

    “If you buy a car and then sells it on, the buyer of your car gets what is referred to as a good title provided you bought yours in good faith, for value and without notice.”

    should instead read:

    “…provided HE bought it in good faith for value and without notice.”

  74. #74 by DarkHorse on Friday, 21 December 2007 - 11:55 pm

    limkamput,

    Laifoong has made an allegation against you on the thread “General election is expected….”.

    Don’t you want to rebut his allegation? It is serious and, I believe, many readers are interested to know if you’re an impostor.

  75. #75 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:24 am

    DarkHorse, mengapa susah sangat. Saya tidak kisah pun apa Laifoong kata. Biar lah kamu semua fikir siapa saya ini. Mungkin saya seorang imposter, mungkin seorang Melayu, mungkin saya berkerja when keselamatan dalam negeri. Ikut hati lah kamu semua.

  76. #76 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:29 am

    Undergrad2, kamu masih belum jawab bahagian kedua perbahasan saya seperti berikut.

    Am I right is saying that your position has been no matter how bad the case is, when taken to court, the prosecution, the defense and the court (i.e the judges) must follow the applicable laws as prevail. And the subsequent decision/conviction is “justifiable” because those charged are given due processas provided. If this was what you said or alluded to, I totally disagree. My contention is if the state is capable enough to bring a “bad” case to court, the administration of justice, including procedural and substantive laws could also be subverted. I hope I have done justice to the debate.

    sila jawab kalau boleh.

  77. #77 by DiaperHead on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 4:49 am

    “…the prosecution, the defense and the court (i.e the judges) must follow the applicable laws as prevail. ” limkamphut

    Yes.

    “And the subsequent decision/conviction is “justifiable” because those charged are given due processas provided.”

    Yes.

    “If this was what you said or alluded to, I totally disagree. ”

    Who are you? Who cares whether you agree or not.

    “My contention is if the state is capable enough…”

    You can take your contention and shove it up your behind.

  78. #78 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 1:42 am

    I think that’s what you’d like me to say or even believe – but NO.

    “My contention is if the state is capable enough to bring a “bad” case to court, the administration of justice, including procedural and substantive laws could also be subverted. I hope I have done justice to the debate.”

    I think your desire to ‘debate on the issues’ is actually your mostly uncontrollable desire to project your views on to others at any cost, perhaps to show how clever you are, right or wrong and in the process you fail to understand what is being said in response to your questions. Either you have not read what is written on the issues, glossed over them or failed to understand them. I think it is a combination of all three.

  79. #79 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 1:46 am

    I can understand why some posters would prefer to make short shrift of your so called legal arguments.

  80. #80 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 2:30 am

    Undergrad2,
    You don’t have to talk big with me. The reality is you can’t answer me and that is why you are turning defensive.

    I never tried to project anything. I don’t have too. I think I am successful enough and there is nothing here other than trying to contribute to some of the discourse. If I am really that useless, Sdr Lim would not have commended my contribution. If there is any intention to project oneself, it is people like you. Are you trying to be a “taiko” here? Honestly to be taiko to those good for nothing fellows is nothing to shout about you know.

    You want to show you are being fair and objective. But the reality is you are not. When I hit back at all the insults being heaped on me, you would quickly side them and even tried to get Sdr Lim to knock me out. Why, are you afraid that finally there is someone able to challenge your half bake views? When others supported me and tried to rebuke some of the unfair criticism labeled against me, you would immediately tell those supported me that the criticism was legitimate. Frankly, my characterization of you being intellectually corrupt is not far fetch. You are. Anyway, we shall see how we progress from here. If you think by tacitly supporting a pack of wolves to knock me out, you are mistaken. I can take all you, there is no problem. Let others judge. One more thing, you people think I don’t know that some of you are actually using different handles?

  81. #81 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 2:38 am

    and in case you think i made wild accusation, just remember that you have accused me for being a Dollah, remember? NO, I never try to be someone else. LIMKAMPUT IS MY ONE AND ONLY HANDLE. I am honest with myself, that is what my religion taught me.

  82. #82 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:37 am

    “….and in case you think i made wild accusation, just remember that you have accused me for being a Dollah, remember? NO…?” limkamphut

    No.

  83. #83 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 1:30 pm

    DarkHorse Says:
    “….and in case you think i made wild accusation, just remember that you have accused me for being a Dollah, remember? NO…?” limkamphut No

    what do you expect from someone who can’t hold more than three variables?

  84. #84 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 4:06 pm

    what do you expect from someone who can’t hold more than three variables like you, darkhorse?

    one morning he wakes man, one morning he wake women and one morning he wakes up in between.

  85. #85 by ktteokt on Sunday, 30 December 2007 - 9:17 am

    The greatness of ISA – they arrest you first, cool you down in prison while they think of what charges to bring against you. If none are available, they will release you without having to compensate you at all.

    This was exactly what was done by bandits in China in the olden days. They kidnap you, find out if you come from a rich family, extort exhorbitant ransom from your family and release you. If they find you coming from a poor family, they will just let you off without even saying sorry! But in certain cases, the unfortunate victim gets killed. This also happens under our ISA!

  86. #86 by Shymasundara on Friday, 11 April 2008 - 2:50 pm

    I is with great concern i am giving my views especially when news that Uthayakumar is very ill due to lack of proper medical attention. Maybe the people need to be mobilised again to send a strong message to the slow and deaf government. Are they waiting for him to die so that peoples anger be further aroused.

    Hindraf, PKR, PAS and DAP should call for a day of prayer and fasting for not only the Hindraf 5 but also all ISA detainees. Just one day mass prayer at all Mosques, Temples, Churches, Gurdhwaras and other house of worship nationwide. Just one day let us appeal to “GOD”. Religious leaders come on show your solidarity. Lets show that all religions can coexist peacufully and effectively.

    Boycott all activity for that one day and send a strong message peacefully. No one should work on that day. Busses, cars, trucks, taxis will all come to a stand still.

    Hopefully then in that silence Pak Lah the “religious god fearing man” will able to hear something and take a positive step.

    Alternatively charge them in court and let the learned judges decide the merits of the case.

    Lets organise it. SMS people to boycott any activity on a chosen day. Everyone should proceed to their respective house of worship and fast for one day. Please everybody no one expected the effects of ” Makkal Sakthi” please respond.

    I propose that Friday 18 April should be declared a day of “Prayer and Fasting”. Feed back please.

    Thank You

You must be logged in to post a comment.