How You Define It ?

Some matters are too subjective to have its exact definition. Take a simple example, the word 'beautiful'. Yes, it is undeniable that the definition of beautiful has been stated in a dictionary, despite with that, when it comes to a particular perception you will have a different meaning, understanding and aspects that has been taken into account.

"for me..she's beautiful if she is tall, have a blue eyes..bla bla bla"

"i would say that a girl who are able to play guitar is considered as beautiful"

Here is the reason of why some matters like this has been given just a general definition.

Because there are too many aspects that need to consider

For you, someone who are able to play drum and guitar are beautiful but for some other guys, they might define a smart girls as beautiful. It's a matter of personal perceptions though.

Am I going to type about this? Beauty? No, of course not. As a matter of facts, it is about 'terrorism'.

So, lets take an eyes onto the definition of terrorism given by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

"terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Since they are the one who listed out the names of terrorists, so they are the one who define what is terrorism. The funny thing is, they (America) is the terrorist themselves. Well, this is just a personal thoughts and views. Why?

Its better to look back at their own definition before I define themselves as terrorist right?

Based on what aspects?

1. "unlawful use of violence"

The word unlawful can be considered as 'no right', 'no legal declaration', 'no authority' and so forth that are based on the 'law'. Do you know that the action taken by the President of United States of America in regards with the military action towards Libya was unlawful? Because he actually failed to get an approval from the right authority, the Congress.

Section 8 of Article 1 of United States Constitution states that;

"The Congress shall have power to.....declare war..."

To declare war, President shall get an approval from The Congress. Did he? No, not at all. Micheal Dorf, a constitutional law expert and professor of law at Cornell University said that this action (military action towards Libya by United States of America) is considered as unconstitutional.

Well, that fulfilled the first aspect of what is terrorism.

2. "to intimidate or coerce government or civilian population, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Iran, Afghanistan, Libya and many more. They killed hundred thousands of them. What is the common thing between all these three countries ? What are the benefits that they will gain by doing so towards these countries?

On its surface, the purpose of attacking Libya is in order to keep Moammar from continuing his attacks on civilians in defiance on international demands. But truth to be told, it is to about political control and oil. Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. Isn't a very good reason? To protect? Then, what the hell with all the killing of Libyan's civilians? Come on guys, you are not that idiot to deny their true objectives.

The funny part is, they gave the their usual excuses of killing those civilians. Wrong hit target ? Thousands of them died and they claimed a 'wrong hit' ??

I guess it is a clear cut to show that the words or the elements of intimidate and coerce had already been fulfilled.

"when the power of love overcome the love of power, the world will know peace" ~ Jimi Hendrix.

I.S.A Is Justice ? : Part 2

May the peace, mercy and blessing of Allah be upon you.

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

The main purpose of this entry is to bring as much as possible the definitions, concept and practical way in regards with I.S.A, justice and its shortcoming.

Does ISA Against Malaysia Supreme Law ?

"What is I.S.A ?"

I.S.A actually stands for Internal Security Act. To be full, it stands for Internal Security Act 1960. It is one of the additional rules of criminal procedure. Besides ISA 1960, other examples of additional rules of criminal procedure are Child Act 2001 and Dangerous Drug Act 1952. Basically, it is being applied in Malaya in order to combat the Malayan Communist Party when at that particular time, Malaya in a state of emergency.

Under part IV of miscellaneous provisions, section 73 of power to detain suspected person, subsection 1 provides that any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe;

(a) that there are ground which would justify his detention under section 8; and

(b) that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof.

So, as far as I concerned, section 73 subsection 1 (b) already explain roughly in regards with the detention of any suspect is in order to prevent or halt any threats to national security. That is why it is somehow to be called as 'preventive detention'. This preventive detention is what we all known as 'Detention Without Trial' (DWT).

Once a person is detain under this Act, something that people should bear in mind is that they should not interpret the definition of detention without trial into a narrower prospect in regards with the place of detention, in regards with the restriction in the form of communication, close contact and so forth. This is one of the Acts that been given an exception towards what is so called as 'detention without trial'.

One may throw out their question by standing onto the Article 5 clause 4 of Part II, entitled Fundamental Liberties of Federal Constitution which provides that where a person is arrested and not release he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within 24 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate's authority.

Yet, at the same time this article provide an exceptions in 2 ways in which

i. in respect of a person arrested or detained under legislation pertaining to restricted residence such as under the Restricted Residence Act 1933

ii. in respect of those arrested or detained under immigration laws.

But most important things that we should keep remind is that there are 4 laws that allowed for this concept of detention without trial as such as, first and foremost Internal Security Act 1960, secondly Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, Emergency (Public Order and Prevention Crime) Ordinance 1969 and last but not least is Restricted Residence Act 1933.

Therefore, it is clearly states that ISA is not against any supreme law of Malaysia indirectly it shows the validity of the ISA in the eyes of law.

Justice In Action

"What is justice ?"

Took only one formal definition of justice from a law philosopher. According to Aristotle, interprets justice as giving one what is due to him and giving one what is his own. As for the definitions of justice according to or from the Islamic perspective is placing something in its rightful place as well as it gives the definition according equal treatment to others or reaching a state of equilibrium in transaction.

In simple way, we could say as give what he deserved and take what is not belong to him.

Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

While Article 11(2) of UDHR states that no one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Obviously it against the concept of justice both from western philosopher and from Islamic perspective as well it is against our universal human rights.

As what I actually trying to show is the needs to avoid the concept of 'arrest first, investigate later'.

Do you deserved something until it is proven that it is yours ? So, when this concept of 'arrest first, investigate later' was applied within our community, it shows the injustice towards the people and thus denying the facts that everyone is actually entitled with their rights and liberties.

"Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberty to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition"

(An-Nahl verse 90)

Istishab, is one of the two important principles guided jurists' use of evidence in making ijtihad. Istishab gives the definitions of continuity in which the most famous example of this is the principle of Islamic law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. A simple question has been raised, can we punish someone who do not been proven guilty ?

Concluding Remarks

As people trying to prove that this Act is valid in the eyes of law, why not these people trying to show the contradiction between this Act and justice as well as against our religious view ?

It is not a risk for me to say that the question in regards whether it is against our supreme law, and most importantly whether it is against the concept of justice and concept of guilty from Islamic perspective has been clearly states and answered. Where is the shortcoming ? Obviously, I already states that indirectly.

Thank you.

May the peace, mercy and blessing of Allah be upon you.

link of the picture 1

link of the picture 2

This is technically based on my points of view in results of my readings and observations. Most importantly, I am not representing any party or individual except for myself.

I.S.A is Justice ? : Intro

May the peace, mercy and blessing of Allah be upon you.

As I was watching a video in YouTube, I was attracted by this video. Nevertheless, in this post I won't comment in regards with this. The next entry will be my short comments and arguments pertaining to Internal Security Act 1960. This will be an introduction for the next entry.

Cigarettes vs Shisha : Ban Both of It !

Peace be upon you.

United Arab Emirates (UAE) already took a wise step by actually banning smoking in public area. Now, the Federal Anti-smoking draft law is worked out in order to increase the prices of the cigarettes in UAE.

Thankful, our government (Malaysia) did increase the price of the cigarettes. Yet, does by merely making its price expensive really works ? Hmm..I am sure some extra steps is needed to achieve our goal which is to reduce the percentage of smokers.

"Why not trying to achieve zero smokers instead of just to reduce it ?"

(-_-ll) Is this question a joke or what ? Now let me ask you back, can we ban 100 percents the import / process of tobacco in Malaysia ?

"Alright, loaded question, you may proceed" :D

But actually, neither the price of the cigarettes nor the banned of the smoking in public areas that I wanted to stress out. In the same news which states about the action taken by UAE, they also states that UAE banned shisha shops in residential areas. This is the good example. Yeah, we did banned shisha in a few places. For instance, Kota Bharu municipal has banned all the food outlets from allowing shisha smoking at their premises. That's not enough. UEA banned shisha shops in residential areas and even now the draft bylaws in UAE are being worked out to move the shops away from the residential buildings.

Well, frankly say that (based on my observation), people are way more courageous to try shisha when actually smoking shisha is 200 times worse than smoking cigarettes, said Middle East experts. Despite that, it's totally weird when people say..

"chill, I'm smoking shisha, not cigarettes" huh ?! It's a big LOL there. Maybe because of the flavour. I guess so..

Enough comments on that. That's all for this time. Peace be upon you..

*By the way, there will be new section in each of my entry called, "picture of the day". Enjoy.. :)

Picture of the day said: "Errr.....?"

Financial Laws and Money Management : Crisis

Peace be upon you, brothers and sisters of my muslim relatives.

As I read about this news, I would like to point out some comments pertaining to this matter. A short one.

Today, on 17th of April, Senator Tom Coburn and Senator Carl Levin recommend an additional changes upon their financial laws of United States of America. As we all know that fraudulent mortgage is reported as one of among the findings.

Their recommendation is made following with the question on the report regards with the causes of financial crisis in 2008. Yeah, they ought made some changes. Seriously.

In 1999, there were a lot of a these kind of crimes. Fraud. They actually obtained the money by deceiving a particular party or a bank. Maybe some sort of exaggerated words or informations in order to get a larger loan. Simple way to say that is like when you say that your mom is somebody, then it won't be a problem for you to pay back the money. In United States Federal court, mortgage fraud is prosecuted as mail fraud, money laundering and etc. This is also one of the reason which triggered to a financial crisis. One of the example which involving money laundering is regards with the action of Credit Suisse, as they had laundered the money for Iran nuclear program. Crimes in financial industry is something in common to say. What to expect ? It's all about money right.

Before I give some explanation why this practice leads to a financial crisis in United States of America, well basically leads to global financial crisis, I would like to point out one important case which is correlated with fraudulent mortgage.

In 2006, 15 defendants were indicted on 79 counts of bank loan fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and so on, as it is correlated with the mortgage fraudulent that targeted the metro-Atlanta area housing market. This case has led to an involvement from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Obviously, it is a serious case.

Now, let me demonstrates to you in a very simple way to show and illustrates to you how this led to financial global crisis.I don't even think this would required you to think out of the box as it is a simple things to think.

What is the consequences when you lend a money to a someone who obviously won't be able to repay ?

Imagine like this..

A = a person who borrow your money

B = your friend /campus-mate who is selling maggi, coca-cola, books and etc to you as you are his or her regular customer and most of his or her income is actually coming from you.

C= assistant for B a.k.a B's roommate.

Here we go, A, who wanted to borrow RM1, 000 out of Rm 1, 250 from your allowance. *also imagine that you are a foundation student like me*. A higher debt means a higher rates of interest right ? Logic. But what if the loan were given to someone who cannot pay you back ? Nahh..here you go. A financial crisis. You can't spend more. You have to really really really limit your budget on the other things. Shoes, clothes, books, foods and so on. Does this merely affects you alone ? Totally not. The income for B would be slightly decrease due to lack of demand from you.

In a mean time, C, who acts as an assistant for B, who usually facing some difficulties to handle his business as before, there is a lot of demands made from you. Now, B have to lessen his products. Do you need a hand when there isn't much things to handle around ? So, B have to fire C from his current job.

Can you picture that ?

Now, imagine that you as a main bank which indirectly represents economy of United States of America, A as your citizens, and B as another country, while C as B's citizens. Simple isn't it.

Well, basically, mortgage fraudulent is happening when a particular person getting a large amount of loan by deceiving. He lies about his current income. He claimed that he is a boss of nonexistent company and so forth when actually the amount of money borrowed is far beyond his capability.

There is another reason which triggered a financial crisis which actually played the same concepts. The different things is, mortgage fraud is a crime, yet this is a legal matter in the eyes of law.

"Subprime"

This is what the investment bank did in 1999 if I'm not mistaken. They actually preferring subprime loan, as they carry a higher interest rates and this has led to a massive increase in predatory lending. This kind of subprime means give a loans to people who may have difficulties maintaining the repayment schedule. In large amount. One of the risks that the banks have to face is that, there is none of the possession of property assets that could be used or acts as a guarantee or security.

To tell exactly the reasons behind the economic crisis in 2008, there are many things to point out. The reasons on how the banks in Iceland losses 100 billion, while their cross domestic products was only 13 billion. Seriously, many things to say about the reasons. Despite that, there are one last thing that I would like to put forward. This thing is also one of the reason of the global financial crisiss. Mean while, this is what they, the world financial experts prefer for.

What is that ?

Deregulation. It means to remove a national or local government from the controls or rules in business or in any other activity. This is what experts trying to do. Leave all the jobs which pertaining to financial to them *experts*. No interference from the government. In 2000, Iceland made a deregulation. What is the impact ? A lot. Financial and environment. This guy took the risk using the public money. Make an investment on something which in need of larger amount of money. Build some sort of project and causes a pollutions.

In our modern days. Especially in Islamic country like us. They are trying to separate any religious things onto a matter of handling our money. "Leave the job to experts."

That's all from me. Feel free to drop any comments or arguments. *If there's any*

Peace be upon you muslim readers, and adios guys.

^^

Criminal Law Based On Islamic Perspective.

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

I greet you all my brothers and sisters of my muslim relatives with the Islamic greeting of peace, assalamualaikum w.b.t.

Alright, what I promised, I must deliver it. But, first of all, I know that today is Sunday. So, sorry. I just got back to Kuala Lumpur by this evening. Despite all of my activities, I do still trying my best to post this entry. Ok, lets get straight to the point.

What is the objectives of this entry ?

1. I made my promise to post this entry

2. In my entry which regards to the bribery crime, I did mentioned pertaining to my suggestion that for this kind of offence, death sentence should be put forward. So, my suggestion is based on what? I will answer it in this entry.

I don't think it is necessary for me to go from the most basic points, so I will explain what is only pertaining to my objectives only.

As we know, criminal law based on Islamic perspective is not merely lie on Hudud only. Be clear about that. The other types of criminal law apply is Ta'zir.

So, what is ta'zir ?

Literally, it means 'preventing'. But conceptuality (shortly), it refers to a punishment which is not has been stated neither in the Qur'an nor Hadith.

What are the examples of offences which fall under this concept ?

There are as such as lying, bribery, gambling, lying and etc.

What are the types of punishments apply under this concept ?

Isolating, fine, advice, imprisonment, strokes, death and etc.

See the words bribe and death ?

Another important points that you have to keep in mind is, this type of criminal law is a discretionary kinds of law which will be decided by the judge called Cadi. Basically, the decision is depends on the degree of seriousness which is regards to the consequences toward the society and so on.

Thank you. Peace be upon you. ^^o

End of Semester 2

Bismillahirahmanirrahim..in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful..

Now, the moment when I post this entry was exactly at 11.00pm on 15th of March 2011. Today is the last day of examination and by tomorrow I'll be going home. My parents will come and may we will have a safe journey. Amin.

so, yeah..I've done my best in my examination. Frankly speaking, the subjects on this semester is much more easier than the previous semester. As compared to before, we have to memorize and understand every single concept and doctrines of law proposed by the philosophers of law. Not to forget that I do really really really damn wanted to have my lucky 4 for this semester. 4 flat for my final exam and band 4 for my MUET. insyaAllah.. ^^

However, I felt a little bit disappointed with my carry marks on a certain subjects. Actually on the subject of Introduction to Law 2 only. It is not on my expectation. Alhamdulillah, thanks to Allah, I'm still have my momentum on my study. It's just that, there's a slight decreased on my carry marks of MTC037 (Intro To Law 2) beacause of my assignments. Not going to babbling on that, all I wanted to say is "find your best partners for your third and most important semester". Define "best partners" .

It can be defined as follows;

1. He or she are going to put 200 percents COMMITMENT on assignment

2. He or she knows how to COOPERATE to complete the assignment given ('cuz I hate chicken)

3. He or she are NOT GOING TO POSTPONE the works (really hate this habit)

4. He or she knows how to CONTRIBUTE MONEY on this assignment

5. He or she knows how to carry out a research. Every time have to consult ! *sigh* (-_-ll)

and other criteria(s) that is relevant.

Some might think that I am very cocky and act like a perfect person who never have any of these bad habit, yeah..i do have, but not every time and every single second. thank you.

p.s: and I don't like people who only knows how to copy and 'renovate' on someone else's assignments. Maybe you should reconsider back to continue your study if this is your attitude.

Enough with the lessons I learnt for my second semester. ^^

Oh yeah, not to forget, I'll try my best to upload and tell a litle bit about my activities on my second semester.

Last but nor least, happy holiday guys! yosh! (^_^)

Beware! Section 498, Penal Code.

Why ?

Section 498, Penal Code states that it is a crime when someone entice or take away or detained a married woman with criminal intent.

Accordance with that section, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years or a fine or both if the offender is found guilty.

The Law of Equality In Punishment

Today, (october 3oth 2010), i read a newspaper about Datuk Sosilawati's case where her eldest daughter, Erni Dekritawati Yuliana Buhari (Rita) filed a claim worth RM40 million at High Court towards N Pathmanabhan and his friends.

This entry is not to discuss about this case, but to discuss about Rita's action.

"Tujuan kami hanya satu, bagi memastikan keadilan dapat ditegakkan sepenuhnya",
"Our goal is only one, to ensure that justice can be fully enforced". Quoted Rita.

She also hopes that people would not misunderstood with her actions.

For me, yes, people should not misunderstood, and so do they have to know in order to understand.

Why did I agree (actually, partial agree with this)? Simple, it is because of the same reason, 'justice'.
"please clarify more.."

First and foremost, ever heard the word of 'Qisas' ?

"O you who believe! Al-Qisas (the Law of Equality in punishment) is prescribed for you in case of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if the killer is forgiven by the brother (or the relatives, etc.) of the killed against blood money, then adhering to it with fairness and payment of the blood money, to the heir should be made in fairness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. So after this whoever transgresses the limits (i.e. kills the killer after taking the blood money), he shall have a painful torment."
(Al-Baqarah: 178)

Did the murderers were sentenced to death ? no! only 7 years due to lack of evidences. What will you do if you're in her (Rita) shoes ? What is her situation now and onwards ? That is why i bold an important sentence there.

Secondly, readers might questioned to me that all of the murderers is an indian. So let me summarize their positions in this country (Malaysia). In this case, they have been categorized under "Kafir Dzimmi". Who is "kafir dzimmi" ? That is those who is not a muslim, which having a peace treaty with Islamic state. Moreover, they are also residing in the Islamic state and submit to Islamic rule. They are the citizens of Islamic state and the laws of Islam is apply to them except a few things excluded in syara'. They have the same rights as the rights of Muslim citizens and property of others Islamic state, blood and honor they are awake.

Islamic law is not the law of individuality, but the most universal law and it applies to all of us, and of course it applies to all of the citizens who lives in Islamic states, which suits for every situations and every decade.

But, to make it clear, Malaysia does not apply this law. In facts, there's a lot of differences between qisas and our current law. For instance, just one example;
1. According to current law, parties to the claim (the prosecution) is the government (public prosecutors), not the heirs of the victim.

All in all, I agree that her actions is to ensure that justice can be fully enforced.
By the way, if you noticed that I did mention about 'partial agree'. Well, that is because she said that she made a claim due to the loss faced by the business operations of cosmetic companies. hmmm....

The Rationale of Article 153

Recently, we could see in the news, newspaper, etc, that many politicians had questions about the Article 153, which stated about the malay special privileges. They said that this article is not necessary as such that this article has denied the concept of equality among the races in Malaysia which has been stated in Article 8 of Federal Constitution, under part 2 of Fundamental Liberties.

In this entry, I'm not going to say about the reasons on why we should abolished this Article, in facts, I am firm with my decision that this Article should be remains.

Before that, I'm going to give a little bit clarification on the concept brought by this Article 153.
Article 153, is one of the articles in Federal Constitution that showed the concept of positive discrimination. What is positive discrimination ?

Positive discrimination according to Dictionary of Sociology, is a policies and practice which favour certain groups which have historically experienced disadvantages. Malaysia refers this concept as a positive discrimination, while for United States of America, they usually refer this concept as a affirmative action or reverse discrimination.

Generally, we could understand this concept as an unequally legal policies which favour certain group(s) which is underrepresented in significant positions in society. Actually, this concept of positive discrimination and affirmative action is the product of the concept of "equality". How ?

One of the doctrines of equality is "substantive equality". The Egalitarian together with the Socialist and the Communitarian subscribed the concept of substantive equality where persons should be placed in a similar position, even if in order to do so they are treated unequally. This doctrines of equality takes a few factors, as such as social conditioning, etc and review whether this policies would have an adverse effect on one party.

John Rawls in "A Theory of Justice", quoted;

" in order to treat all persons equally, to provide a genuine equality of opportunity, society must give more attention to those with fewer natives assets and to those born into the less favourable social positions. The idea is to redress the bias of contigencies in the direction of equality "

That is why, this doctrine of substantive equality is the basis of affirmative action and positive discrimination.

Did you know why this Article has been drafted ?

Because to protects Malay and natives, specifically, Bumiputra. I'm not going to type all that long about our history, we as Malaysians, should already know about it. In facts, we all just been informed that in 2013, History will becomes as a must pass subject besides BM. As we know that Chinese and Indian at that time (1957) were already a rich urban dwellers compared to Malay which mostly poor farmer and labourers. Despite, in the late 1970s, Bumiputra controlled only 4 percent of the economy. Can u imagine? only 4 percent ? How about another 96 percent ?


Next, according to Huang-Thio Su Mien in " Constitutional Discrimination Under the Malaysian Constitution (1964) ", the rationale behind the Article 153is to confer special privileges upon the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak so that preferential treatment can be legally practiced;

1. as a method of adjusting the political balance of a heterogeneous society
2. to protect the interest of pluralistic minorities which aim to preserve their own culture, while
co-existing with the dominant class
3. to sanction a preferential treatment to a certain groups in a country which has previously
enjoyed special privileges
4. to empower s State to take ameliorative measures to advanced the status of economically,
socially and culturally depressed communities.

Last but not least, I could say that the reasons of the needs of this article can be merely similar with the reasons of the needs of the law as according to the theories of "Truism About Human Nature" as stated by HLA Hart.

1. Limited altruism
2. limited recources
3 Limited understanding and strength of will.

Just for an information, actually, according to this theory, there another two theories that lies in theories of "Altruism About Human Nature", that is human vulnerability and approximate equality.

Whatever it is, this is just my 2 cent opinion.

"Never Underestimate The Effectiveness of A Straight Cash Bribe"

Never underestimate the effectiveness of a straight cash bribe ~ cloud cockburn

It is effective, and so do it gives a great impact.

Recently, Indonesian supreme judge has stated that they are giving their full commitment and support regarding the death sentence in the fight against the bribery crimes in their country.

In my humble opinion, i do think that Malaysia should also put the same effort by enforce the same sentence for the bribery crimes. As according to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act , under the section 24 stated that any of the offences which has been done under the sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23; imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and
fined for not more than 5 times greater than the value of the bribe received.

Maybe some of us would say that this penalty is strict enough to reduce the bribery crimes in Malaysia, despite, the question "is it?" has been raised.

China, is one of the country that practicing the death sentence for this offence, has achieved a positive result. In facts, their citizens had showed their satisfaction in response of this penalty.

I would like to state just 2 cases that involve the bribery crimes in our country which is enough to show that the this crime was already in a critical stage. on what ground?

first, in october 3rd 2010, a magistrate jailed for 6 years and fined of RM40 000 at the session court after being found guilty on two corruptions charges in october. Now, at what stage is our courts' credibility in justice?

secondly, in october 14th 2010, 7 immigration officers who is said to be involves in human trafficking in terms of bribery, detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Now it is your interpretation pertaining to this issue. What say you?

whatever it is, this is just my 2 cent opinion.

"Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale" ~ Gore Vidal