Hantu Laut

Is the ISA a necessary evil? It is not evil by itself but made evil if leaders abused it to silent their critics and political opponents.

The oppositions wanted the ISA removed for different reason, not so much to protect our civil liberty, but more to serve its own political agenda. Using the ISA to go to the streets was only an excuse. The real reason behind it is to paint a picture of solidarity of the group and to constantly remind the people that Pakatan is united when it is not.If you are so popular why the need to go to the streets every now and then.

So, don't be fooled that they actually wanted the ISA repelled to protect you and I. They wanted it because they want to turn this nation to be in a state of upheaval and topple a duly elected government.

Interesting article from the Nutgraph below.

Why Malaysia needs the ISA

10 Dec 08 : 8.00AM

By Wong Chin Huat

NO, your eyes do not fool you. Nor have I been visited by Special Branch officers and “turned over”.

I was at the Petaling Jaya Civic Centre car park Sunday night, 7 Dec 2008, attending the weekly anti-Internal Security Act (ISA) gathering. A passionate speaker lamented that there were so few Malaysians there because they were afraid of the ISA. He was also disappointed that corrupt governments can be overthrown once and again by demonstrating crowds in Bangkok, but not in Kuala Lumpur.

The gentleman could not be more wrong if he thought the causality works only in one direction — that the ISA causes people to shun demonstrations. It actually works both ways — the ISA also exists because of some people's fear of demonstrations and all other forms of political expression.

Also, one could not be more wrong to think that the ISA is merely an evil tool of the Barisan Nasional (BN) to control citizens. It is not a complete falsehood when BN politicians claim that the people want the ISA since they support a ruling coalition that desires the ISA.

The ISA is here because it has served a purpose to a sizeable segment, probably the majority, of Malaysians. What purpose is that? Having a strong government.

(Corrected) Without the ISA and all other draconian laws, a government cannot be strong in an autonomous sense — it can only persuade and not coerce people to support it.

But why would people want a strong government? Because we are fundamentally a Hobbesian nation.

Thomas Hobbes (source: wikipedia.org)

Hobbesian nation

Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century conservative British philosopher, believed that human beings living in the state of nature were living in a state of war, their lives short and brutish. Incidentally, it was Hobbes who invented the concept of the social contract.

Driven by our selfish desire to compete for resources, we would pose threats to each other in the absence of government. Therefore, it is justifiable for a government to be absolute and disregard consent because the people cannot be trusted.

Push the Hobbesian logic to the extreme, and you will believe that even a bad government is better than no government. If only Hobbes was Asian, he would assure us that the government is always benevolent.

Most of us are Hobbesian because we do not believe that a multi-ethnic society can remain peaceful if the citizens are free. We are insecure with our differences.

Some of us wish for the differences to be eliminated through assimilation, with everyone professing one faith, speaking one language, observing one custom, or inter-marrying for common posterity.

And there are bound to be some among us who feel hurt when a “sensitive issue” is raised. The issue could be the constitutional “special position of Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak”. Or it could be the extra-constitutional issues of bumiputeraism, Islam, the Malay language, the Malay rulers, or Chinese and Tamil schools.

And feeling hurt gives us a strong reason to ask others to shut up. So, we wave the keris, stage demonstrations, point fingers at other's noses, tear people's pictures up or even threaten to burn down buildings. The message is simple — stop this or you will incite ethnic riots.

Preventing ethnic riots 101

How do you prevent an ethnic riot? The government's answer is simple — crack down with the ISA.

In other words, the ISA and the authoritarian state that it protects is the lesser evil compared to looting and irrational mass killings. And since the ISA is here, everyone expects the state to use it against others who hurt their feelings. For many, the ISA is actually legitimate insofar as it is impartially used.

That is the reason why a government defending the ISA has been supported by more than half of the Malaysian electorate. It's like an insurance premium paid to hedge the risk of a disaster.Read more..

A German's View Of Fanaticism

By Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans,Japanese,Chinese,Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.

The author of this email is a well-respected German psychiatrist.It is well-written,short and precise. Hantu Laut

WHEN DO I HAVE TO GIVE A DNA SAMPLE TO THE POLICE?

Hantu Laut

The law on consent to give DNA samples or not differ from one country to another.

In UK (United Kingdom)or rather in England and Wales the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 changed this to allow DNA to be retained from people charged with an offence, even if they were subsequently acquitted. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 later allowed DNA to be taken on arrest, rather than on charge. Since April 2004, when this law came into force, anyone arrested in England and Wales on suspicion of involvement in any recordable offence (all except the most minor offences) has their DNA sample taken and stored in the database for 12 years, whether or not they are subsequently charged or convicted.

Malaysia passed the DNA Bill in June 2009 that will force criminal suspects to provide DNA samples. The compulsion would be through a court order.

The one below which is applicable in New Zealand would be close to the Malaysian's requirement.

WHEN DO I HAVE TO GIVE A DNA SAMPLE TO THE POLICE?

 What is DNA?
The human body is made up of millions of cells. Each cell contains DNA and each person's DNA is slightly different. This means that your DNA profile can be used to identify you. For example, if the Police found a hair at a crime scene, using DNA they could work out if it belonged to you provided they have your DNA profile. This is why the Police collect DNA and store it on their DNA database.

 Police powers to take DNA samples
The Police can take a DNA sample in certain situations. They do this by taking a buccal test (done by swabbing the inside of the mouth) or a blood test (usually done by a fingerprick) .

A blood sample can only be taken by a suitably qualified person, like a doctor or nurse. You may take a buccal sample yourself. You can choose which way the sample is taken unless a Judge orders otherwise.
The powers the Police have depend on:
• whether you're a suspect in a specified crime and they have evidence to compare a profile to; or
• if they simply wish to include your DNA profile in their DNA databank.

 If you're a suspect
When the Police are investigating an offence they may take a sample from you only if:
• you are a suspect; and
• the offence is serious enough that it will be determined by a jury (an "indictable offence"); and
• they have reasonable grounds to believe that the sample will confirm or disprove your involvement in the indictable offence.

They either need your permission to take a sample or a compulsion order from the High Court. You can speak to a lawyer about giving a sample at any time.


If the offence is a "summary offence" (for example, common assault or wilful damage), the Police can only take a sample if you give them permission.

 Police requests for a DNA sample
When the Police ask to take a sample for DNA analysis, they must give you a written notice and tell you the following things:
• the offence the sample request relates to;
• that they have reasonable grounds to believe the sample will confirm or disprove your involvement in the offence;
• you do not have to give the sample;
• you can change your mind about giving the sample at any time before it is taken;
• you are able to speak to a lawyer before deciding;
• the sample may be used as evidence;
• if you don't consent to giving the sample, and there is good cause to suspect you committed the offence they are requesting the sample for, the Police may apply to the Court for an order requiring you to give a sample.

If you allow the Police to take a sample, your consent must be written and signed or recorded on video. At any stage before the sample is taken, you can withdraw your consent just by saying so.

If you're between 14 and 17 years old, the Police will need both your permission and permission from one of your parents. If you're under 14, the Police may ask you to give a sample but they cannot make you give one unless the offence they are relying on is manslaughter or murder. If the offence they are investigating isn't one of those, the only way they can get a sample is if you let them. They can only take a buccal sample in this case.

 Compulsion Orders
If you refuse to give a sample, the Police will need to apply to the High Court for a compulsion order to take a DNA sample. A notice must be sent to you by the Police telling you they have applied to the Court and you are able to give evidence to the Court opposing the grant of the order.

The two guys from DAP who refused to give their samples can't escape.The police can get a court order to compel them to provide the samples.

Lim Kit Siang's Obfuscated Article And Dirty Rotten Political Scoundrels

Hantu Laut

In sheer desperation to prop up their flagging support and to stonewall the true nature of the death of Teoh Beng Hock, the opposition in general and Lim Kit Siang in particular were prepared to come up with some ridiculous example of, not a Royal Commission, but a judicial review of the mysterious death of a biological expert and weapon inspector David Kelly in Britain in 2003.

Kelly was found dead with his throat slit and was suspected to have committed suicide. Due to controversy on whether he took his own life or was murdered by element involving the government a judicial review or inquiry into the cause of his dead was conducted by the British government.Lim's rather obfuscated article here.

Lim in his article made it appears that Kelly's case is the same as Teoh's and a judicial review is the same as a Royal Commission which he motivated and intended to mislead clueless Malaysians to believe in his ill-conceived expert's stand on the issue.Lim's bad intention can be seen from simply quoting the case in name only without revealing the full extent of the story.

The Kelly's controversy is not simply a mere mysterious death, it involved the security of the nation and reputation of the British government.

Kelly was a civil servant in the Ministry of Defence and was suspected as the source that leaked information to the BBC on the government embellishment of intelligence report on the presence of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq that eventually led to the invasion of Iraq by American and British forces.The 'sexed up' report was attributed to coming from the press office of Prime Minister Tony Blair.The judicial inquiry was chaired by Lord Hutton appointed by the government which eventually concluded that Kelly committed suicide and exonerated the government.

I just thought he had a broken heart

Janice Kelly's evidence to the inquiry

Two days after his death the BBC confirmed that Kelly was their principal contact

In the Hutton's inquiry his wife told the inquiry into his death that her husband had been utterly dismayed by the media frenzy around him.

Janice Kelly said he became: "distracted... dejected... desperate...I just thought he had a broken heart. He had shrunk into himself".

A judicial review is different from that of a Royal Commission as the inquiry falls under the review of one of the branches of government, the Judiciary.The Kelly's case which attained national importance due to leakage of highly confidential information that implicated the British government obviously did not justify a Royal Commission of inquiry .

The judicial inquiry was not born out of oppositions politicising the issue or political gesturing as in the Teoh's case, which has now become DAP's constant battering ram against the government and attempted slaying of the dragon to show who's the people's hero.

It is sad to note that some section of our society is taken in by the opposition's lies and politicized agenda.They have distorted the facts and turned the tragedy into their political capital to rouse racial sentiments to politically benefit the DAP and others of their ilk.

It's requirement of the law that any death under mysterious or suspicious circumstances must have an official inquest to determine the cause of death and the government is doing exactly what the law requires them to do.If the opposition have no confidence in the government it is merely their own opinion and not generally the majority opinion of Malaysians.If Malaysians have not wanted this government they wouldn't have voted them in as the Federal government in the March 2008 Elections and won in 8 out of the 13 states.It was short of just 8 seats to get two-thirds majority.

The oppositions had gone over board because this is the first time they have significant and substantial presence in government and are overly excited at the prospect of being the government soon.It is,therefore,in their interest to create political disquiet, sow the seeds of discontent in the people's mind and destabilise the government. Any slackening of this dirty campaign would mean a nosedive in support.

There is no such thing as a Utopian government, every government is not perfect, each and every one has weaknesses and imperfections.How soiled is the imperfections is the deciding factor whether a government is good or not.

Thomas Jefferson has summed up in the simplest form of what he contrues as good government. He said "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the only legitimate object of good government." or in even simpler form the Canadian political maxim of "Peace, order and good government"

What have Pakatan been trying to do since after the March 2008 Elections? Weren't they trying to destroy the peace and harmony that the nation has enjoyed for over 50 years, with the exception of the May 13 racial riot, the cause of which is not dissimilar to what the opposition is doing now, inciting hatred of the government.Obviously, Pakatan only have tantalising issues.

Is a Royal Commission really that necessary to determine the cause of death merely based on assumptions and accusations by the oppositions that the government is unreliable and untrustworthy.A Royal Commission is only appropriate if the general public and the government deemed that part of the government system has failed just like in the case of the MACC where the government have doubts on the operating procedures employed by the agency that have directly or indirectly contributed to the death of a witness.To accuse the agency at this stage of homicide and lay the blame at the government's feet is unfair and unjustifiable. We should abide by the legal parlance that 'one is innocent until proven guilty'.

The opposition has threatened to seek audience with the Agong to request for a Royal Commission.

Lim Kit Siang is not a fool or stupid politician, he knew fully well the Agong has no power to call for a Royal Commission on his own.The Agong can only call one upon the advice of the government. To involve the Agong and portray to the people that he can interfere in executive decision is most absurd and could make the government redundant.

This is DAP and Pakatan's ultimate 'sandiwara' to fool the people, the like of those that make regular visits to political blogs, including this one. People with their eyes shut and mind zonged, courtesy of Pakatan's dirty propaganda machinery.

There is no need for the Prime Minister to meet the family of the late Teoh Beng Hock but since he has kindly acceded to their request he should be lauded for it.

Past Royal Commission in Malaysia:

• Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video Clip (2007- )
• Royal Commission for Police Reform (2004)
• Royal Commission to investigate alleged injuries suffered by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim while in police custody (1999)
• Royal Commission of Inquiry into the fire at the Bright Sparklers factory in Sungai Buloh New Village (1991)
• Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate a fire at Sekolah Agama Rakyat Taufikah al-Halimah in Padang Lumat, Yan, Kedah (1989)
• Royal Commission of Inquiry on the collapse of the upper deck of the Pengkalan Sultan Abdul Halim ferry terminal in Butterworth (1988)
• Royal Commission on the Teaching Services (1971)
• Royal Commission of Inquiry to Investigate the Workings of Local Authorities in West Malaysia (1968)
• Royal Commission on Salaries and Conditions of Service of the Public Service (1965)

The hound dog's cliches:

Najib – turn the first stone to find out the causes and circumstances of Teoh’s unusual death at MACC by respecting the family’s wish and set up Royal Commission of Inquiry.Read it here...

TBH RCI – Has Gani Patail never known of the Hutton Inquiry into the causes and circumstances of David Kelly’s death?.Read it here...

One thing I would agree with Lim Kit Siang is, YES, we do need a new IGP.The force needs some very serious shaping up to bring back respectibility and restore public confidence.