The Prime Minister and Internal Security Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should present a White Paper on the status of implementation of each of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to create an efficient, accountable, incorruptible, professional world-class police service service to keep crime low, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights.
It is four years since the establishment of the Royal Police Commission and more than 30 months since the publication of the Commission Report and its 125 recommendations to create a world-class police service in Malaysia.
In the past two years, I had repeated asked in Parliament the status of the implementation of the 125 Commission recommendations and I can say with conviction that none of the two Internal Security Ministers, Datuk Johari Baharum and Datuk Foo Ah Kiow has any real clue as to the answer – as they just read out the reply that will be supplied to them by the police, without any understanding or authority over the subject.
This is one of the greatest flaws of the police system because there is no political authority over the police when this is the most important principle in an elected system of government – where the police is not a law unto itself, but under the political control and authority of the elected government of the day.
This is why after all the fanfare about the establishment of the Royal Police Commission, and the publication of its Report and 125 recommendations to carry out far-reaching police reforms, public confidence in policing and the maintenance of law and order have today reached an all-time low with the crime index crashing through the 200,000 mark for the second year in succession in the nation’s history and Malaysians, visitors, tourists and investors never felt more unsafe in the country.
(Media Statement 2 when launching the 2-day 12-place “whistlestop” campaign in Perak to highlight the DAP national general election theme of “Good Cops, Safe Malaysia” at the Bidor market on Saturday, 12th January 2008 at 8 am)
#1 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 7:28 am
“…where the police is not a law unto itself, but under the political control and authority of the elected government of the day.” KIT
There definitely is political authority over the police – no flaw inherent in the Parliamentary system of government. The flaw if any is man-made. PDRM does not exist outside the civil service, nor is it an independent agency answerable directly to the prime minister or parliament.
Isn’t the Minister of Internal Security the minister in charge of public order and law enforcement?
#2 by HJ Angus on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 8:09 am
One worrying factor is that the Police have become too close to the political leaders or is it the other way around.
As corruption grew in width and depth in both segments, there appears to be a common understanding that the IPCMC would damage to both parties and hence the delaying tactics.
Unfortunately the delaying tactics have turned into total refusal and defiance of the oversight body like the IPCMC that was recommended by the government’s own royal commission.
The failure to implement the IPCMC can be regarded as the submission by the duly elected government to follow through on a executive mission.
If there had been no IPCMC perhaps the damage control would be easier but now it is clear there is a corrupt axis between the police and the politicians.
#3 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 8:14 am
“One worrying factor is that the Police have become too close to the political leaders or is it the other way around.’
Under the parliamentary system of government, the armed forces (including the police) are subservient to the civilian leadership.
In the case of Malaysia, ‘civilian leadership’ is read as UMNO leadership.
#4 by k1980 on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 8:19 am
Businessman Loh Mui Fah today disclosed that it was his son who had recorded the Lingam tape, finally putting to rest the question of the controversial clip’s authenticity.
http://justice4allkuantan.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/the-lingam-tapebusinessman-goes-public/
#5 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 8:29 am
“I can confirm that, but I have no way of ascertaining that it was Ahmad Fairuz at the other end. I have only what Lingam told me,†he said.”
No problem. It is hearsay but admissible through an exception to the common law rule against hearsay – res gestae.
#6 by Tickler on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 9:31 am
Imagine then a young woman standing on the side of a main road (the witness). She sees some commotion across the street. On the opposite side of the road to her she sees an old man shout ‘The bank is being robbed!’ as a young man runs out of a building and away down the street. The old man is never found (so can’t appear in court and repeat what he said) but the woman repeats what she heard him say. Such a statement would be considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence because the statement was made concurrently with the event and there is little chance that the witness repeating the hearsay could have misunderstood its meaning or the speaker’s intentions.
Res gestae is also used to refer to those facts or things done which form the basis or gravamen for a legal action.
#7 by Tickler on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 9:33 am
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.— Mark Twain
#8 by LittleBird on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 9:46 am
Nothing will happenlah. This is sickening. After reading Loh Mui Fah’s interview and the non responsive of the PM (as usual) I have no confidence that anything worthwhile will come out for Malaysia.
I think Saudara Lim should ask PM to answer why he didn’t reply to his letter. If only the previous PM Mahathir had acted on the poison letter written by Syed IDID all these would never happened.
#9 by Tickler on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 10:07 am
Attack On M. Kulasegaran By Johor MIC Assemblyman An Attempt To Cover Up Improprieties In Maika Holdings And Silence Voices Of Shareholders Seeking The Truth
(Petaling Jaya, Wednesday): DAP unreservedly condemns the irresponsible, illegal and violently unacceptable behaviour of Johor State Assemblyman for Tenggarah Datuk S. Krishnasamy in attacking DAP National Vice-Chair and MP for Ipoh Barat M. Kulasegaran yesterday during the Maika Holdings Bhd(Maika) Annual General Meeting(AGM). In his police report yesterday, Kula asked police to act against the Johor ADUN for elbowing Kula and pushing Kula away from the mike when Kula was speaking to the Maika AGM at Legend Hotel in Kuala Lumpur.
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/2006/nov06/lge/lge498.htm
Seems like the chappie shot dead about 2days ago was himself of a highly questinable character. In TDM`s words `bad`.
#10 by Justicewanted on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 10:21 am
Royal Police Commission’s 125 recommendations – what happened??????
——————————————–
Went to the Tidur-land like the PM.
#11 by k1980 on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 10:43 am
Ayo, old geezer, give 2 up!
http://rockybru.blogspot.com/2008/01/give-one-up-sir.html
#12 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 11:02 am
“Such a statement would be considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence because the statement was made concurrently with the event..” Tickler
Yes, the better word to use is ‘contemporaneous’ rather than ‘concurrent’. But whether it is evidence would depend if a bank robbery was in progress was an issue in the case. To be evidence it must first be relevant.
So the witness who asked Lingam who he’s speaking to on his cell phone and heard him reply “Ahmad Fairuz”, for him (the witness) to repeat in court what Lingam said i.e. that he was speaking to Ahmad Fairuz would be admissible in evidence, though heresay, through an exception referred by its Latin term ‘res gestae’. It must be spontaneous and contemporaneous to the event.
Whether it meets the requirement of spontaneity and whether it was contemporaneous to the event would be an issue of fact left to the jury in the event of a jury trial – otherwise the judge as an arbiter of both law and fact.
#13 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 11:20 am
Malaysia should bring back jury trial. Would Anwar be found guilty if there was a jury trial?
#14 by Tickler on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 12:24 pm
Malaysia’s Tax Payer-funded ACA Acting Like a Gangster Outfit Hounding and Threatening Innocent Citizens
http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2008/01/malaysias-tax-payer-funded-aca-acting.html
#15 by greenacre on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 12:45 pm
Murder, rape and missing children had become the norm in Malaysia.
The police seems to be at a loss. A former policeman told a class of students during a lecture that most of the police success comes from confessions and nothing more. Painstaking investigation is rare. Most of the time they try to show their face and a book. My one cent suggestion is, to temporarily relieve all the police top brass and appoint a team of Gurgkah police with their swords and all. Criminals will be running for their lifes.
#16 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 12:54 pm
“So the witness who asked Lingam who he’s speaking to on his cell phone and heard him reply “Ahmad Fairuzâ€, for him (the witness) to repeat in court what Lingam said i.e. that he was speaking to Ahmad Fairuz would be admissible in evidence, though heresay, through an exception referred by its Latin term ‘res gestae’. It must be spontaneous and contemporaneous to the event.” DarkHorse
I do not think it is heresay at all. If Lingam denies ever saying it was Fairuz, there are witnesses who heard him say.
#17 by shortie kiasu on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 12:55 pm
It is not just the Police Force, all the rest of government depts and all civil servants are behaving the same, not functioning in a way that they should be functioning: efficient, corruption free, effective, customer/client-friendly, trustworthy, full integrity, diligent, intelligent.
When one visits any departments in the civil service nowaday, especially, after Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over the reign of the administration, performance worsened. Even though, salaries had been increased by leaps and bounds, performance overall does not match the increase at all.
May be that is what made Malaysian civil servants to be, over-staffed, with non-performers of mono-race.
During festivals, like Hari Raya period, you will notoced the government offices are literally empty, with a handful staff who just refused to perform.
Now, the Abdullah is saying to give “V.S.S.(Voluntary Separation Scheme)” for those who are lazy. These lazy bumps will get their V.S.S. and with full pension thrown in, isn’t that ridiculous and backwardness thinking? Those who cannot perform should be sacked with no compensation at all. Yet Abdullah and his senior civil servants have the cheek to propose something that is totally against all rationalities!!
Malaysia government and its civil servants really “”boleh”” as far as such “Gaji Buta” is concerned. Manna from the sky!
#18 by Samson on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 1:07 pm
Rakyat nowadays are desperate. Desperate to earn a decent living and desperate for a better life and safety environment.
But crimes in Malaysia are on the increased, possibly carried out by desperate rakyat because of the flawed policy implemented (and good policy not implemented) by the BN led government. Even criminals are not afraid of the “anti-rasuah” police force because of the poor governance.
Sad to say this, CORRUPTIONS AND RACISMS have become the CULTURE of MALAYSIA. In all sectors from judiciary to human rights we see corruptions and racisms being practised.
Malaysians DO NOT deserve this!!! We deserve a better MALAYSIA. Equal rights and equal opportunity should be accorded to all Malaysians. Poverty can be eradicated by implementing the NEP to all hardcore poor Malaysians. Malaysian wealth and resources are abundant and enough to help the poor if the ruling government is clean in its administration.
Strength, Honour and Justice to Malaysia. SAY NO TO CORRUPTION, SAY NO TO RACISM. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
#19 by Tickler on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 1:16 pm
Krishnasamy had a number of businesses, including a construction company and was believed to have a stake in several restaurants in Johor Baru.
One of his close business associates was a man with known underworld links, The New Straits Times said.
Unnamed sources said their relationship, which began before Krishnasamy entered politics, turned sour about two years ago when police closed in on the man’s activities.
The businessman, from Kedah, was investigated for passport forgery, human trafficking and several other cases. He is said to have moved his operations from Kedah to Johor several years ago.
The deceased was said to have helped his associate obtain a tow-truck business licence in Johor Baru.
http://www.indianmalaysian.com/sound/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1035
#20 by HB Lim on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 1:47 pm
What Lingam told Loh would or would not be hear-say evidence depending on what was sought or attempted to be proved by such evidence.
Loh heard what Lingam told him and he is testifying exactly that – “Lingam told me that the person on the line was so-and-so” – that is direct evidence of what Loh heard and this is not not hear-say. Whether the content of what Lingam said – that the person on the other side the Chief Justice – was true or not is another matter altogether and if the purpose of introducing that evidence is to prove that the person on the other end was the Chief Justice, then that is hear-say.
If Loh could not be in court and Mr A comes and says “Loh told me that Lingam told him the the person on the line was the Chief Justice”, then that would be typical hearsay and ought to be excluded unless it falls under one or more of the exceptions to hearsay. That is becuase Mr A did not hear directly what Lingam said but was told of the same by Loh.
What one actually sees, hears or feels is not hearsay but is direct evidence of what was seen, heard or felt. If the purpose of Loh’s evidence was that he saw Lingam talking on the phone and later Lingam told him that the person on the other side was the Chief Justice, that would be direct evidence that 1. Lingam was on the line with someone and 2. he has said that that someone was the Chief Justice. However, that evidence cannot be used to prove that the person on the line was in fact the Chief Justice.
If Loh’s son comes and says that he was the one who shot the video and is able to describe consistently what and how it happened and then what happened later to the recording and identify that the recording as produced to the AG and circulating in the net was the video he took, that would be direct evidence that the video was authentically taken in Lingam’s house and of the occasion.
I think with Loh and son’s evidence, Lingam cannot get away from the fact that the video was genuine or authentic (i.e. not fabricated, sliced and spliced together, to use the words of Vijandran) and that he was the one captured on the video talking to someone on the brokering of the positions of judges.
Now, he has to tell us who that someone else is.
#21 by smeagroo on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 2:06 pm
4 years in power what has he done? Oh yea, he got married.
#22 by k1980 on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 2:17 pm
4 years in power what has he done? Oh yea, he got married…. and he got damn wealthy by holding on to 3 portfolios in one go
#23 by kanthanboy on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 5:00 pm
[ACA officers had once intercepted him while he was on his way to Singapore, and also visited his office and home simultaneously where they threatened to ‘take away’ Loh’s youngest son] Malaysiakini
It appears to me the ACA officers have committed a crime by intimidating a witness.
#24 by jus legitimum on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 6:28 pm
Besides PDRM,the whole civil service is race biased and is plagued by apathy.inefficiency,lack of accountablity,corruption etc.Overstaffed and being lackadaisical and many are overpaid,yet these greedy bums want the government to pay each and everyone of them 2000 ringgit token money.Have these parasites ever looked at those outside the civil service? Many employees in the private sector are lowly paid and do not enjoy job security like the civil servants.Moreover quite a number of them have been dismissed and have remained unemployed for a long time.
#25 by legalsabahan on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 9:29 pm
I’m not so familiar with Malaysia legislative, but isn’t it better if the politics got no power over police force. and the police force shall stick to laws when doing their duties. Same with Badan Pencegah Rasuah, legislative and so on.
But i don’t see any of it during this few years law suits. Anwar shall be in jail for hundred over years based on the news i read before, but he is released just after ex-PM step down!
The whole Malaysia system is heavily corrupted and the government won’t do anything cause they happy with thee situation!
#26 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 10:03 pm
HB Lim,
Let’s see if we could agree on the issues:
1. Video – relevant and not hearsay, to prove accuracy (recording not been tampered with)
2. Identity of the caller – relevant and statement not hearsay, to prove the existence of a conspiracy at the highest level of government
VIDEO
Maker needs to appear as a witness to testify as to the facts i.e. he made the recording, how he did it etc. If the maker is not available as a witness (e.g. fearing for his life), then the father assuming he was present when the recording was made could testify as to the making of the recording. If he was only made aware of the recording after the fact, his testimony would still be relevant.
Is the motive for the recording relevant? No.
Is the video relevant? Yes.
The video is relevant to show that it was Lingam who was seen talking and heard talking (direct evidence). The contents of the telephone conversation must be relevant to an issue in the case. It is relevant in this case to prove the existence of the alleged conspiracy to ‘fix’ judicial appointments (direct evidence).
IDENTITY OF THE CALLER
The issue. The identity of the caller is relevant to the issue of conspiracy to ‘fix’ judicial appointments AND that it involves the CJM and the highest level of government.
Do we need to know the identity of the caller to prove that there is the existence of a conspiracy to ‘fix’ judicial appointments? No.
We have only the word of Lingam as to the identity of the caller. But it is not hearsay. It is circumstantial evidence. The problem is how much weight to give to it. Lingam has no reason to lie. His reply to the question as to who he was speaking to soon after the conversation could be corroborated by other witnesses present.
Are the witnesses independent witnesses? Is there sufficient corroboration? Do they have a motive to fabricate evidence? If Lingam denies he said that, then the fact that the witnesses had reason or reasons to lie are relevant and goes to the weight to attach to the evidence. If Lingam does not deny saying it was the CJM, then their motive is irrelevant.
“However, that evidence cannot be used to prove that the person on the line was in fact the Chief Justice.” HB Lim
Why not? We have the admission of a witness (Lingam) to another witness soon after the fact. It is a statement which is incriminatory of the maker – and therefore very reliable. It is not hearsay. It proves Lingam was part of some conspiracy. It proves the CJM was involved.
“Now, he has to tell us who that someone else is.” HB Lim
He just did – to the witnesses present. I suspect in his testimony Lingam would deny saying in the presence of any of the witnesses in the room that it was the CJM. But then he would still have to identify who he was speaking to. Tough call – because whoever it was he said he was talking to he would be called to testify. Should Lingam refuse to answer the question by the prosecutor, he would be held in contempt and detained in jail until he decides to tell the court who it was.
#27 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 10:08 pm
ooops It is not circumstantial evidence. It is direct evidence.
#28 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 13 January 2008 - 10:36 pm
HB Lim,
It is both direct and circumstantial. It depends on the issue or issues.
#29 by undergrad2 on Monday, 14 January 2008 - 1:17 am
Not to worry folks! The case will probably never see the light of day.
#30 by k1980 on Monday, 14 January 2008 - 8:14 am
How many times must the PM look up
Before he can see the sky
How many ears must the PM have
Before he can hear people cry
How many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died
The answer, my friend, is farting in the wind
The answer is farting in the wind
http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/blowing.htm
#31 by pwcheng on Monday, 14 January 2008 - 11:25 am
The police should be charged for negligence and the government for abetting them for the abysmal condition of the country.
IPCMC will slowly fade into the horizon and after some years will be a forgotten story. They were stillborn right from the start. The malice is caused by non other than the Government which is practically run by UMNO and the others are just wall papers to make up the numbers and as decoy to get some non-Bumi votes and also a yes man and bogeyman of UMNO and worst still they are like concubines of UMNO and they as their leaders had admitted, they work close doors, in the bedroom perhaps.
Please MCA do not always work behind close doors. Otherwise you are no better than a concubine. Human by nature, the more submissive you are, the more submissive they want you to be. The “Art of Negotiation” will tell you the truth in this. In history no country has ever won a war by being submissive. Perhaps they can only win a battle but will ultimately lose the war. Your weakness is clearly displayed and that is why we are slowly loosing the war, though you can boasts of winning a few battles.
#32 by Godfather on Monday, 14 January 2008 - 3:43 pm
Kit to AAB: What happened ?
AAB to 4th Floor boys: What happened ?
4th Floor boys: Dunno.
AAB to the public: I don’t know.