Judgement Not For The Laymen

Hantu Laut

Before I proceed further let's visit one very angry Malaysian here. His fury, a judgment pronounced by, no less, the President of the Court of Appeal on a rape case that have sent ripples across the nation.

Many of you, particularly, those in management or stakeholders in businesses, must have read the book "Peter Principle" by Dr Laurence Peters and Raymond Hull. 

I read the book in the early seventies when I was still a young man just starting out in the business world. I had, in my later years, the opportunity to witness "Peter Principle" inherent in my own organisation. People getting promoted to their level of incompetence.

Out of their ubiquitous observation they have come to a conclusion that in almost every organisation "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence"

How the judiciary promotes its judges and what criteria used I have no idea.

I will not question the judgement as there may be other factors and circumstances that we are not privy to. 

However, the comment by the judge or ground for judgement is discomfiting to the layman.

Should a famous person be reprieved from punishment under the law? Was his age and his whole future the ground for such leniency?

Malaysia have had many statutory rape cases and many of those charged had been given long imprisonment. 

Recently, squeaky clean Singapore had a child prostitution scandal that rocked the nation and shaken its political and economic elite. Paid sexual favours from a child prostitute by businessmen, bankers, civil servants and uniformed officers.

Among those charged was prominent Singapore socialite Howard Shaw, the grandson of Runme Shaw who was 41 and had 2 daughters from his previous marriage when the crime was committed, the girl was under 18. Actually she was 5 months short of her legal age. 

It would be considerable feat to tell the difference between 17 years 7 months old and an 18-year old.

Howard Shaw was given 3 months sentence but is out on bail pending appeal. Story here.

The Singapore case may not be exactly the same as the Noor Afizal's case. He committed the crime when he was 18 and the girl 13. Malaysia's age of consent for sex is 16.

Has the judge erred in his judgement ?

Well, if I am not wrong the prosecution can still appeal to the Federal Court.

Read here one very angry woman, always angry with the government and the judiciary. 

DEMOCRACY AT ITS WORST

Hantu Laut

This has nothing to do about politics in Malaysia. This is about a bizarre official guidelines for sentencing of desperate criminals in the United Kingdom. A new official guidelines for judges to give lighter sentences to burglars and thieves who steal to fund their addiction to drug, gambling and booze even if they target vulnerable victims.

The recommendations were issued by the authority due to serious over-crowding in prisons. It is asking judges not to impose prison sentence on criminals who committed crimes under the guidelines.

So if you are pick-pocketed or they came to your shop to rob you, they would get away with just doing community work. What a pleasant and polite way to treat criminals. Wouldn't it be better if you can ask them to do your housework to repay what they stole from you?



Wouldn't it be nice to be such criminal, you can rob to get your fix and as punishment all you need to do is sweep the streets in your town for a few weeks or so and that's it, you have paid for your crime. You can repeat doing it if you wish.

What's happening to the Brits? Have they gone bonkers ? Read here.