Category: Idiot Overlords

Seditious Ruling

Flag of the Supreme Head of Malaysia
Flag of the Supreme Head of Malaysia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I wish that our government should stop using the word rule when they talk about themselves. They seem to have forgotten that a government merely governs, it does not rule. Only the Rulers rule.

This is a symptom of being in power for far too long. They have forgotten that they merely govern and I’m sure some of them have styled themselves as de-facto Rulers by now.

Which is why I think that the bunch of kids are being hauled up for acts of stepping on the PM’s photograph under the Sedition Act is unlawful. In the Act, S.3(1) defines seditious acts as:

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of the Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(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;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.

The only way that I can see that stepping on the PM’s photograph is wrong is if he is defined as the Ruler for he is certainly not the government but merely the head of one branch of government.

Let me reiterate this – our PM is not the government. So, how could the Sedition Act apply to an act of stepping on his face – unless of course he styles himself as the “Ruler”, which would itself be seditious.

Then again, maybe I’m just too stoopid to understand these things.

Also, it’s OK to step on a Chief Minister’s photograph but not so to step on a Prime Minister’s photograph. I wonder what would happen to someone who uses the photograph as target practice in a range.

Malaysia Boleh!

Related articles

GE13 Date!

Since everyone and their mom seems to be placing bets on when the next General Elections are being held, I thought that I’d drop my prediction into the hat too. I have to stress that this is purely my personal opinion and does not represent the views of any other person or organisation.

I predict that we’re going to go full term.

My rationale for this prediction is simple enough. I don’t think that BN has the capability to win back two-thirds majority nor do they have the slightest chance to win back all the states. Whether the BN wins a simple majority or loses, both scenarios would be seen as a failure. Only an out-right massive win would be seen as victory.

As that is highly unlikely, our PM would likely have to swallow humble pie and take the blame for the results. If he doesn’t step down gracefully, his opponents would oust him out just like how our previous PM was shoved off unceremoniously.

Therefore, it is not in his interest to call an early election. In fact, it is in his best interest to stay on as the un-elected PM for the longest time possible to enjoy the perks of office. Since it is entirely the PM’s prerogative to call for the elections, I don’t see why he would.

That’s just my 2 sen on the topic.

Someone (not me) should start a pool.

Hudud and Malaysia

English: A green version of http://commons.wik...
English: A green version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Allah-eser2.jpg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thanks to the limited knowledge gleaned during my Islamic Law class, I’ve come to form my opinion on the situation and it is really simple: all sides are talking about different aspects of the same issue. As a result, the message to the public is one that is thoroughly confused and pushes everyone back into their own corners, in fear.

On one side, we have PAS who are adamant that Hudud has to be implemented in Malaysia, no questions asked. This position is simple to understand once we realise that Islam encompasses all aspects of life, not just religious rituals. That is why we have such things like Islamic Finance and Law.

For a person’s faith to be complete, they must accept all aspects of Islam, including the complete implementation of Islamic Laws – lock stock and barrel. It’s an essential item of faith. Therefore, it is necessary for all Muslims, including those in PAS, UMNO or otherwise, to accept Islamic Law.

This is the hard-line stance taken by PAS leaders.

That said, it’s not wrong to question the details and implementations of these Laws. In fact, such things are explicitly welcomed. While the Quran lays down general principles of Law, it is often sparse on details, leaving these to be filled by man. It is also important to take stock of present cultural and/or societal norms into consideration.

In the case of Malaysia, this often means taking into account the wishes of the large minority of non-Muslim people in the country. While one may argue that Islamic Laws only apply to Muslims, it is enough to observe current events in our country to know how this separation quickly becomes messy in real-life.

This is the song sung by the UMNO leaders.

Then, the general view of most non-Muslims that Hudud is a Bad Thing and is against our core ideas of justice, right and/or wrong. This view is further strengthened by the Constitutional argument that our country is not an Islamic State. As a result, Hudud cannot be implemented in Malaysia.

Let’s not forget that Islamic Law is already part of our legal system. Whether or not Hudud ever becomes Law in Malaysia is a question that is to be answered by the future generations. Maybe a day will come when everyone in the country can accept it. Then, introducing it would merely require a Constitutional amendment.

However, for now, I would ask that we sort out the legal mess that is our dual-legal system first. Until and unless we can work out all the kinks and loopholes, it would be folly to try to stack more stuff onto the system.

So, my question to all those making so much noise about Hudud is simple – what are you going to do about fixing the current mess first. Then, we can talk about how Hudud can be implemented in Malaysia.

Related articles

PM Elections

I just had this random thought this morning – about how Malaysia might want to have direct PM elections.

In our current system, the PM is appointed by the YDPA based on his discretion on who commands the majority in parliament. My argument is that this is based on the notion that by commanding the majority support in parliament, the PM also enjoys the majority support of the people.

Unfortunately, with gerrymandering and malapportionment, it is possible for a Malaysian PM to command a majority in parliament with under 20% of the popular support. So, this premise no longer holds true. A better measure that the YDPA might use to appoint the PM is a person who can command the majority of popular support.

What better way to get this feedback than through direct PM elections?

I will try to develop this idea further in my law blog, taking into account the necessary Constitutional Law aspects.

Bersih 3.0 Video

Another one that is pretty well done.

It’s a good attempt from DAP to do the voice-over in Malay. However, the script is still obviously written by someone who isn’t too fluent in the language.

“Tenat” would’ve been a much better word to use.

TM is LIABLE

As any good netizen, I go about changing my online passwords regularly. With the new Law coming in under the Evidence Act amendments, it was doubly important for me to increase my online security as I would be held liable for any illegal activity originating from my ISP account.

So, I went about to try to change my UNIFI passwords using the self-service portal. However, the option was grayed out and that was not possible to do.

So, I raised a ticket to ask for the proper way to do it (1-2599347454) and the reply I received left me aghast!

I was told that it was their policy to NOT allow their customers to change passwords ourselves. The only way was for them to reset it on their side, but TM will always know my password. There is no way for me to have my own secret password.

This just beguiles the mind.

I hope that TM realises the amount of liability that they are opening themselves up to. With the recent amendments to the Evidence Act, any TM contractor can get my password and login with it from another location to do illegal activity and I would be presumed by the Law to be the the one guilty of the illegal act.

What is wrong with you, TM?

If I ever get into hot soup with the Law, you’re going to be hearing from my Lawyers.

Lazy Ass MCMC

I Not Stupid
I Not Stupid (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Our government is regularly headed by people who are either lazy or stupid (likely both). I’ve written about this in my Law blog but the logic behind the amendments to the Evidence Act that shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused is either lazy or stupid.

Our MCMC Chairman, Datuk Mohamed Sharil Mohamed Tarmizi, was quoted as claiming that it was easy for people to deny that they’re the perpetrators of crime by just saying that “it wasn’t me”. Therefore, the burden of proof needs to be shifted as there is no other proof that the authorities can muster to support their case.

This kind of logic is either plain stupid or lazy. That’s why we have to beat confessions out of people, or throw them out of windows. Our authorities are filled with people who are plain stupid and lazy.

Elsewhere in the world, the authorities are able to catch cyber criminals doing all sorts of bad things, from hacking, to piracy and pornography. However, our local authorities are unable to do it and now wish to make a presumption of guilt onto any accused party.

And to top it off, they’re holding children hostage. “As more of the young are connected online, who is going to watch over these kids when there are real people who want to harm them.” This kind of statement is only designed to evoke an emotional response, rather than a rational one.

If the issue was child pornography or crimes against children, then make that an “exception” to the general rule. Even then, it’s dicey. Two can play at this game as a child rapist would still be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Why should someone who posts defamatory comments be considered worse than a child rapist?

However, making it a general rule and then using an exception to explain it away, is just stupid. That’s right. I’ve used the word ‘stupid’ so many times in this entry, but I’ll need to use it another time.

It is evidence of stupidity, laziness, the lack of education and training when someone tries to introduce a Law to force the accused to prove something that doesn’t exist. It is nigh impossible for the accused to present any evidence to prove that they didn’t do it. The only way to do it would be to find out who actually did it.

Maybe the right thing would be to just allow this amendment to go through and to have a free-for-all festival on-line targeting all the law enforcement and major government figures. Let’s just go around making defamatory comments masquerading as the MCMC chair and let him try to prove his own innocence.

Stupidity isn’t a valid defence either.

Related articles