52nd National Day

The False Merdeka Consciouness

Bovine 1 Malaysia

Does Merdeka Mean Peace And Prosperity Or Policing And Oppression?

Merdeka 2009: A Divided Nation

Michael Learns To Rock, Forever!

Apathy: The Story Of A Mousetrap

A mouse looked through a hole on the wall.

He saw the farmer and his wife opened a package. "What food might this contain?" the mouse wondered. He was devastated when he saw that it was a mousetrap.

Scurrying to the farmyard, the mouse run as fast as it could to warn the other animals:

"There is a mousetrap in the house!

There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The Hen clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. My wings are already full taking care of my chicks. I cannot be bothered by it."

The Pig sympathized but said, "I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it. We can only pray. Be assured that you will be included in my prayers too."

The Cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse... I'm sorry for you, But it's no skin off my nose."

So, the mouse returned to the house, his head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap... Alone.

That very night a sound was heard throughout the house. The mousetrap caught something!

The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital. Then she developed a fever. The farmer returned to the farm and killed the Hen to make chicken soup for his wife.

The farmer's wife did not show any improvement. Friends and neighbours came to take care of her. To feed them,

The farmer butchered the Pig.

Unfortunately, the farmer's wife died. Many people came to her funeral. The farmer had the Cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.

The next time you hear someone is facing a crisis, remember this story. When one of us is threatened, we are all at risk... We are all involved.

(Source Unknown)

Legal Aid And Assistance To Those Arrested In The Anti-ISA Protest On 1 August 2009

Thursday, 20 August 2009 05:19pm

Contributed by Ravinder Singh Dhaliwal, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri and Stephanie Bastian 589 people including 44 juveniles were arrested on Saturday 1 August 2009 in connection with the anti ISA protests in the centre of Kuala Lumpur. Two teams of lawyers from the Bar Council mobilised themselves to respond. The Human Rights Committee took charge of monitoring while the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) formed an Urgent Arrest Team to provide legal aid and assistance to those who might get arrested. News about the Arrests As early as 6.30 am on that Saturday morning, volunteer lawyers of the Legal Aid Centre (LAC) had already gathered at the LAC office in Wisma Kraftangan. There were lawyers manning the Centre while others went on the ground along Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman, Sogo areas and Masjid Jamek to monitor the situation. The Centre received the first report of arrests at about 9.00 am. We also received reports that people were beaten up by the police and excessive force was used in the course of arrests even though those taking part in the assembly were not violent. In one incident, when one of the lawyers called on the police not to use excessive force the police shouted back, “if you want to talk about rights, you go to court, you lawyers all you know is rights, rights, rights!” As the day progressed, more and more calls were coming in informing the lawyers about arrests taking place at the different hot spots. Some arrests even took place outside Wisma Kraftangan itself! A few of the volunteer lawyers were also tear-gassed and harassed by the police. Sieving through the Information The lawyers at the Centre began sieving through the information while trying to figure out the actual situation, especially where the detainees were being held. Where it was possible, lawyers asked the persons detained to confirm their whereabouts and advised them about their rights through the calls. They were also counseled to voice their requests to meet the lawyers and not to sign any statements without the presence of lawyers. The information suggested that those detained were taken to a number of police stations including those on Jalan Campbell and Jalan Tun H S Lee, but it also seemed to suggest that everyone was being moved to the FRU PGA Complex in Cheras. To clarify the situation, the lawyers attempted to contact various police stations including Bukit Aman and Cheras to confirm the arrests, determine the location of the detainees and notify the authorities that they would be acting for the detainess – without much success. Most police stations denied holding any detainees and the FRU PGA Complex could not be contacted. In the end, it was decided that one of the lawyers would take a trip to the FRU PGA Complex, Cheras and to report back to the rest. He arrived at about 3.00 pm and was probably one of the first lawyers to arrive on the scene. FRU PGA Complex – Extremely Uncooperative and Inaccessible At the Cheras FRU PGA complex it was clear that hundreds of people were in police custody. This was evident from the truckloads of detainees being driven in. At this point, more lawyers had arrived but their efforts at gaining access to their clients proved difficult, as the police and the FRU Officers were extremely uncooperative. Lawyers were made to stand and wait outside the huge Complex and repeated requests to talk to an officer or person in charge to find out what was happening was a futile effort. There was an absolute lack of response from the officers manning the gate. To make the problem worse, it was not clear if the Complex could be used as a detention centre. There appeared to be no police officer in charge, investigation officer or OCPD and the Complex became one huge inaccessible fortress. Those police officers that we had to interact with just said ‘NO’ to every request or query. They did not even bother to invoke Section 28A (8) of the CPC as they normally do. A senior Officer told one of the lawyers “Don’t talk to me about the law, you lawyers know the law and all I know is this is a ‘kawasan larangan’ so you cannot go in”. They were uninterested in the law. It was just a case of “no” and “you can do what you want.” Despite being at the Cheras FRU PGA Complex for close to 5 hours, and despite numerous attempts on our part we never managed to gain access to any of the persons being held here. It was clear that the police have scant regard for Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. In situation after situation they deny lawyers the right of access and continue to make a mockery of Section 28A (2) to (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code which specifically allows for such access. At some point, buses began to leave the complex. It was not clear at this stage what was going on. Were detainees being released or merely being moved to different police stations? As has become standard police operating procedure in this country, the police never provide any information about what is going on! We asked but as usual we were met with a wall of silence. Lawyers thus had no choice but to resort to chasing police buses on motorbikes to try and figure out what was going on. After several attempts, one of the lawyers finally caught up to one of the buses at the train station in Cheras. Detainees were being let off the bus here and the lawyer managed to speak to them. This was the first time that we were able to confirm that releases were taking place. It baffles the mind as to why the police had to resort to such secrecy pertaining to their actions. If you are going to release someone – why not just say so. If you are going to remand someone – is it so difficult to inform the family and friends that a remand order is being sought and let them know where and when the remand hearing will take place? There are a lot that needs to be done to reform the police force, but one immediate step that they could easily take (if they wanted to) would be to be more transparent. But old habits die hard and the lack of transparency and secrecy appear to have become part of Polis Di Raja Malaysia’s organisational culture. Bukit Jalil Police Station – Interviewing Clients and Remand Hearing While the lawyers were still at the Cheras FRU Complex, they began to receive reports that some of the persons detained were being held at the Bukit Jalil police station. Some lawyers remained at the Complex to monitor the situation while others began traveling to Bukit Jalil. Another group of lawyers headed to Petaling police station upon hearing of the detention of three juveniles there. When they arrived at the Petaling station, they discovered that one of the three juveniles had already been remanded for four days. The first volunteer lawyers arrived at Bukit Jalil at around 9.00 pm. They spoke to the OCPD and asked to see their clients. After waiting for almost 2 hours, they finally managed to see the IO, Inspector Buruwin. They repeatedly insisted on access and finally at about 11.00 pm the team began to interview about 40 persons who were being detained in Bukit Jalil police station. It was not certain if the remand would take place immediately and so the lawyers waited outside the police station till 2.00 am when they were informed that the remand hearing would only take place at 11am on Sunday (2 August). The volunteer lawyers regrouped at the Bukit Jalil police station at 9.00 am on Sunday. Despite being told that the remand proceedings would take place at 11.00 am, the team wanted to turn up early since some of those detained on Saturday had been detained as early as 9.00 am on Saturday morning and there were concerns that the remand hearing might take place before the 24-hour deadline. (Lawyers outside Bukit Jalil police station after remand hearings) The remand hearing at Bukit Jalil began at around 12.00 noon on Sunday. The two juveniles who had been detained at Petaling police station were brought to Bukit Jalil in a van. Puan Naziah was the presiding magistrate and she began by hearing the remand applications in respect of the two juveniles. She ordered them both released. She then proceeded to hear applications for remand in batches. She began with batches of three but towards the evening the batches got bigger with the last ones numbering 17 and 21. It was only during these proceedings that we learned that about 13 persons arrested early on Saturday morning had already been given remand orders. This remand hearing had apparently taken place at about 2.00 pm on Saturday afternoon when we were still at Wisma Kraftangan and the anti-ISA gathering was in full swing! The 13 had apparently been arrested at about 3.30 am on Saturday morning. No lawyer was present at the proceeding and the majority of the 13 were remanded for four days. While the remand hearings were going on, 21 more persons who had been held overnight in the Brickfields police station arrived. The remand hearing was a long drawn out process. By about 4.00 pm some of the volunteer lawyers were exhausted. Many of them had been at the Bukit Jalil police station until 3.00 am on Saturday night and then returned to Bukit Jalil at 9.00 am on Sunday morning. It had by now became clear that the remand hearings would run into the night. Following that, an SOS was sent out for reinforcements. By 6.00 pm more lawyers began arriving at the Bukit Jalil police station to assist. The remand hearing finally came to an end at 9.15 pm – after almost 10 hours! The total number of persons whom the police sought to remand was 77. The police failed to get remand orders against 59 persons and over the course of 10 hours, 3 juveniles, 11 women and 45 men were released. There were cheers of joy and jubilation as those released met their friends and family outside the police gate. Over the course of the day, a total of 18 persons were remanded - 1 juvenile, 5 women and 12 men. The final batch of lawyers came out of the police station at 9.30 pm to applause and shouts of “hidup peguam” from the crowd of family members and friends of the detainees. Bail Application – Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court On 3 August 2009 (Monday), 29 persons were brought to the Sessions Court and charged; 16 for being part of an illegal assembly and 13 others under the Societies Act for distributing T-shirts for an unregistered society (Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA or GMI). The volunteer lawyers did the bail applications. The prosecution asked the Court to impose a bail of RM6,000 and a RM5,000 bond on the juvenile. The Court, however, after hearing arguments from the lawyers, fixed bail for each of the 28 at RM500 and allowed the juveniles to be released on a RM 300 bond. The police then whisked off four of the women who had been offered bail in the Sessions Court to the Magistrates Court where they were charged for apparently not producing their ICs when arrested. Once again the lawyers conducted the bail application and bail was set at RM200 each. (Detainees released on bail) Making a difference The presence of lawyers at Bukit Jalil police station and the Court made a difference. At the remand hearings on Sunday in the Bukit Jalil police station, the police failed in three out of four cases to get a remand order. This failure rate is unprecedented. We remember all too well, previous situations of mass arrests – when almost everyone would get remanded. The maximum remand against the 18 was only two days - which meant that they had to either be charged on Monday or released. The number of persons who were released at the remand hearings on Sunday stood in sharp contrast to the situation on Saturday afternoon when 13 unrepresented persons were remanded, the majority of them for the maximum of four days. The lawyers who handled the bail application also did a good job by getting a bail as low as RM500. In previous situations of mass arrest, bail had sometimes been as high as RM2,000. Thank you The Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) would like to thank all those who were part of the Urgent Arrest Team over the weekend and all those who responded to the SOS for more volunteer lawyers, chambering pupils, and staff of the Centre. Everyone played their part. Truly it was a wonderful team effort involving many people – some of whom gave their time and effort on short notice. We laud them for sacrificing their time and energy over the arduous three days. From being with us at our Centre to monitor the arrests, to traveling to different police stations on Saturday to try and locate those detained, for going to Bukit Jalil police station to assist in the remand hearing and for turning up at the Court on Monday to help in the bail application. Their combined efforts and commitments to the fundamental tenet that every one has the right to legal counsel made a real difference to the length of time that the detainees had to suffer in police custody. We thank the following persons for assisting in one way or another. Their presence made a real difference to the lives of all those detained: Ravi Nekoo, Ravinder Singh, Fadiah Nadwa, Saha Deva, Stephanie Bastian, Valen Khor, Harleen Kaur, Rajen Devaraj, Puspawati Rosman, Harvindar Singh, Rajesweri Paramesevam, Mohd Radzlan Jalaludin, Nik Waheeda, Farida Mohamad, Sasha Lyna, Murnie Hidayah, Farhana Abdul Halim, Syuhaini Safwan, N. Surendran, Latheefa Koya, Honey Tan, Pushpa Ratnam, Lim Chee Wee, Ragunath Kesavan, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Edmund Bon Tai Soon, Daniel Joseph Albert, Syahredzan B Johan, Jonson Chong, Patrick Dass, Lee Choi Wan, Chow Siew Lin, Steven Thiruneelakandan, Brian Jit Singh, Verghese Aaron Mathews, David Dinesh Mathew, Khaizan Sharizad (Sherrie), Rachel Vanuja Suppiah, Seira Sacha, Adiba Shareen, Soo Siew Mei, Lim Kar Mern, Joanna Loy, Ahmad Zamri B Asa’ad Khuzaimi, Zulqarnain B. Lukman, Azizzul Shariman B Mat Yusoff, Ariff Azami B Hussein, Zulhazmi B. Shariff, George Varughese, M Puravalen, Richard Wee, Chin Hsu Lin, Chin Oy Sim, Andrew Khoo, Bavanee Subramaniam, Sivamalar Genapathy, Elizabeth Anne, Jeevanathan Angappan, Sheena Manicam and Nalina Grace Nair. [Ravinder Singh Dhaliwal is the Chairperson of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL), Fadiah Nadwa Fikri is the Secretary and Stephanie Bastian is the Executive Director]

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated!

NEW YORK, Aug 18 — Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.

“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”

Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.

Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Centre at Johns Hopkins University.

Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.

“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”

John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”

The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.

Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.

The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.

Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analysed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.

The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.

From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.

Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes. — NYT

I Love The P.S. At The End

To my darling husband,

Before you return from your overseas trip I just want to let you know about the small accident I had with the pick up truck when I turned into the driveway. Fortunately, it was not too bad and I really didn't get hurt, so please don't worry too much about me.

I was coming home from Sylvia Park and when I turned into the driveway. I accidentally stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake. The garage door is slightly bent but the pick up fortunately came to a halt when it bumped into your car.

I am really sorry, but I know with your kind-hearted personality you will forgive me. You know how much I love you and care for you my sweetheart.

I enclosed a picture for you. I cannot wait to hold you in my arms again.

Your loving wife.

XX

P.S. Your girlfriend phoned.

"Crime of passion is a criminal defendant's excuse for lacking the premeditation element of a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak. The defense is usually raised in murder or attempted murder cases, when a spouse or lover finds his/her partner sexually involved with another and shoots or stabs one or both of the coupled pair. To successfully raise the defense, the defendant must have acted immediately after the provocation, without time to "cool off". If the element of premediation is eliminated, the charges may be lessened from provable homicide to manslaughter with no death penalty and limited prison terms. The impassioned defendant may even be acquitted."

See link:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/crime-of-passion/

Who Is Liable?

"Courting Trouble" by Nizam Bashir, Malaysian Insider

AUG 7 — Much has been said and written about last Saturday’s Gabungan Mansuhkan ISA (“GMI”) rally.

Most notably, the discussions centred on the question of whether traders along Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman in Kuala Lumpur are entitled to file a suit and seek damages against the demonstrators for losses they supposedly sustained on the day of the rally.

Some legal eagles were consulted and quotable quotes began to fly quick and furious on the possibility of such actions being grounded on nuisance and negligence.

However, in the midst of all this riveting and compelling narrative, I was a little puzzled that little mention was made about the police use of their weapon of choice — tear gas and water cannons. Well, little negative mention that is.

The media has actually gone on to report that the police were “congratulated” by the “authorities”. (Suffice to say, my puzzlement has given way to something else.)

No matter. Let’s start by asking some rhetorical questions — rhetorical only because answers to them could be obtained from reports from here and there.

Was the assembly peaceful? Yes, at least until the police started firing tear gas and water cannons. (Source: Reports by observers from the Human Rights Committee of the Malaysian Bar, Aug 2)

So, why did the police opt to fire their weapons of choice? The police were apparently forced to use tear gas “... disperse some 10,000 people from participating in gatherings organised by the Abolish the ISA Movement (GMI) ...”. (Source: Bernama, Aug 1)

Was the order to disperse essential because there were two rival groups (i.e. pro-ISA and GMI) vying to deliver a memorandum regarding the use of the ISA and this was a possible threat to public order? No, because by 2.15 pm, the pro-ISA rally was cancelled. (Source : The Star, Aug 1)

So, when did the police start using tear gas and water cannons? At approximately 2.27pm onwards. (Source: The Star, Aug 1)

This much is now clear. Tear gas and water cannons were used merely to force the participants to disperse from a peaceful assembly. That was the crime — a peaceful assembly.

No matter. Let’s now consider the propriety of the “sentence” — tear gassing and water cannons:

Is it appropriate to use tear gas? The most common form of tear gas is o-chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS) and chloroacetophenone (CN).

According to a study conducted by a number of medical doctors, including those from Harvard Medical School and Duke University Medical School, and reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

CS has a number of toxic effects. Broadly speaking, "... oral toxicology studies have noted the ability of CS to cause severe gastroenteritis with perforation. Metabolic studies indicate that absorbed CS is metabolised to cyanide in peripheral tissues."

More worryingly, the same study also expressed caution at the fact that "... studies have not adequately examined the possibility that CS at less than high concentrations can cause lasting pulmonary effects."

CN is said to be "... more likely to cause permanent corneal damage on contact with the eye and primary and allergic contact dermatitis ..." (Source: Journal of the Americal Medical Association Vol. 262 No. 5, Aug 4, 1989)

Is appropriate to use water cannons? Water cannons have been known to cause serious internal injuries and even broken bones. (Source: Wikipedia)

Was tear gas merely used on demonstrators? No. Tear gas, like any airborne chemical agent, is indiscriminate in its effect. It affects anyone coming in close contact with it. Case in point — Masjid Jamek batik trader Fusaini Kuno complained of irritation in his eye when the police fired tear gas without any warning. (Source: Malay Mail, Aug 3)

Were water cannons merely used on demonstrators? No. Water cannons, like tear gas, cannot target indiscriminately. (Source: Wikipedia)

Consequently, it is manifest that the “sentence” is inappropriate given its propensity to cause harm, known or unknown.

This is why since 1981 and 1987 respectively, Britain no longer considers CS gas (tear gas) and water cannons as suitable tools for crowd control.

So, what actually happened that Saturday? A number of Malaysians felt very strongly that the ISA should be abolished — not amended.

They were so impassioned by their convictions that they took to the streets to peaceably express their sentiments and did so pursuant to an express right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

They did just that and nothing more. Until the police tear gassed them and used water cannons on them and so much more.

So, should the police be “congratulated” for their actions? Well, to paraphrase Lord Scarman’s words from his report on the Brixton Disorders, not if their tactics aggravated a public order situation. What more when the assembly was peaceful.

This does however leave us with one final tantalising question — should the traders sue the demonstrators or should the traders sue those who would be more worthwhile to pursue? Maybe it is time to call those legal eagles again.

Crackdown Hits Malaysian PM’s Popularity

By John Burton in Singapore

Published: August 4 2009 22:36 | Last updated: August 4 2009 22:36

Najib Razak, Malaysian prime minister, has suffered a blow to his reputation as a reformer after a violent government reaction to an opposition protest at the weekend led to the arrest of nearly 600 people.

Mr Razak, who came to power in April, has sought to promote economic reform, pleasing foreign investors with measures such as reduced privileges for the ethnic Malay majority in business and politics.

But the tough government response to the 10,000-strong demonstration in Kuala Lumpur – against a long-standing law that allows detention without trial – suggests Mr Najib is continuing the tradition of his predecessors in dealing harshly with unauthorised opposition rallies.

The opposition may have hoped for the tough police response because it could reverse the recent surge in Mr Najib’s popularity. His approval rating rose to 65 per cent in June from 46 per cent a month earlier.

Mr Najib has promised to improve economic opportunities for ethnic Chinese and Indians, who mainly supported the opposition in the 2008 election, which nearly toppled the governing coalition that has been in power since independence from the UK in 1957.

But the use by police of tear gas and water cannons may revive doubts about the government’s commitment to reform, including a promise to review the Internal Security Act, which was the target of the protest.

Mr Najib defended the police action, saying it was necessary to maintain public order, and suggested protesters should have found alternative means of demonstrating.

“We can provide them stadiums where they can shout themselves hoarse till dawn, but do not cause disturbance on the streets,” he said. Most of those arrested have since been released.

The last big demonstration in Kuala Lumpur was in 2007, when ethnic Indians protested against what they claimed were discriminatory government practices. The resulting clash with police caused many Indians to support the opposition in the last election.

One of Mr Najib’s first acts as leader was to free the protest leaders, who had been held for nearly two years under the ISA.

Other relevant links:

Suhakam: Respect right to assembly

Teenage Son Of ISA Detainee Among Demonstrators Nabbed

Suhakam Admits No Bite