ISA: Announcement vs. Process of Parliament

It is utmost welcome to hear the long waited “ANNOUNCEMENT” of abolishing the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) by the PM not many hours ago, particularly during the eve of Malaysia Day. Surely with that announcement, many believe that ISA has been ABOLISHED or REPEALED.

My friend asked me what my view is. I told her it is mere “ANNOUNCEMENT”. The PM did not say when the effective date is. Of course he would not be able to say so. As I view it, the ISA is still currently remaining in force and has not been ABOLISHED or REPEALED. Mere “ANNOUNCEMENT” does not repeal or abolish an act of Parliament. The ANNOUNCEMENT ought to be viewed with utmost caution and ought not to be viewed as repealing the ISA. At best it is mere an INTENTION to repeal the ISA.

Any act of Parliament like the ISA, it has to go through the proper and legally binding process to actually repealed or abolished. The process to repeal any act of Parliament, as I understand it, is akin to its “creation”. There has to be a Bill being drafted and passed through the process of Parliament to actually repeal or abolish the ISA. ISA does not repeal by mere announcement or correspondences. I am not aware of such act being drafted, what more passed through the process of Parliament to repeal the ISA. As I said earlier, the process to repeal the ISA is akin to its “creation”. The process of Parliament is this.

In Malaysia, there are the lower house known as Dewan Rakyat or House of Representatives and the upper house known as Dewan Negara or Senate. The Parliament will exercise its power to make laws by passing of Bills in both houses. A Bill may originate in either of the House. However, there is one exception. Subject to Article 67 of the Federal Constitution, the "Money Bill" must originate in the House of Representatives and can only be introduced by a minister.

The House, which a Bill is originated shall send it to the other House once the Bill has been passed. After the other House passed the Bill, it must be presented to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for His Royal Highness' assent pursuant to Article 66(3) of the Federal Constitution.

A Bill goes through several stages of "Reading" in both the Houses. At the 1st Reading stage, only the long title will be read. This is a formality when the Bill is first introduced to the House. The most important stage is 2nd Reading. The contents of the Bill are debated at length and discussed by all members of the House. After that Bill goes through a Committee stage; normally the Committee of the whole House as opposed to special select committees. Special technical details of the Bill may be discussed at this stage. Finally, the Bill is returned to the House for its 3rd Reading. This is again a mere formality.

Pursuant to Article 66(4) of the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must assent to the Bill by causing the Public Seal to be affixed thereto. This must be done within 30 days from the date a Bill is being presented to His Royal Highness. The Bill will become law at the expiration of the 30 days period specified in the like manner as if His Royal Highness had assented thereto, should His Royal Highness, for whatever reason, fails to give assent to the Bill within the specified period. 

A Bill assented by His Royal Highness shall become Law. However, no laws shall come into force until it has been gazetted or published pursuant to Article 66(5) of the Federal Constitution. 

That being the process, there must be a Bill to repeal the ISA originated from either of the House and thereafter going through the above process of Parliament. Once such Bill passed through all the above process of Parliament, it will become an act or law of Parliament having the full force and effect of repealing the ISA. Only then we can safely say that the ISA has been REPEALED or ABOLISHED.

Having said that and as the matter stands, the ISA is still currently remain in full force.

"Biar Papa Asal Bergaya"?

Recent years, the evolution of smart phones hit the market greatly, so great that many willing to let their pocket empty so long as they get one. A few of these smart machines; to mention are Blackberry, iphone and HTC. No doubt they are smart in their own features but some of us (from my recent years of observations) are "stupid" enough to be smart! My observations are as follows:-

(a) They get a smart phone (some even get two or more) despite knowing that their pocket don't allow them. "Never mind"they said because they can always get a "FAMA" loan which they will never repay. The financier for this "FAMA" loan is their parents! The financier never bother to demand for repayment and the "borrower" closes two eyes and conveniently forget their promises to repay. So they got a smart phone and tell the whole world about it. That is fine enough if the problem end here. But read below.

(b) The smart phone then lead to their stupidity. Now they know that a smart phone will not be so smart without what we called "data plan". So they subscribed to one and get "smart". Because their pocket disapproved them from getting a smart phone at the first place, they now discovered that they can only subscribed to a prepaid data plan as opposed to a postpaid data plan. Not even a plan though since it may be only daily charges or weekly charges basis! Again, they said "never mind". So, they consistently have to top up their prepaid credit so that their smart phone get smart. Fine enough, so long as you consistently do the topping up.

(c) To most of my horror and dismay, they "defaulted" in keeping on the topping up. They said "never mind" again. "Lets do credit sharing" they said. So they send a most annoying SMS to their friends. That type of SMS sounds like this: "ABC is requesting to share RM10 from you...". As simple as that so that when that particular friend who received that annoying SMS reply to say "YES", the smart phone resumes it smart features again. And when nobody reply with a "YES", the smart phone then become less smart and will only be able to merely receive SMS or call. This would last for a week or even more. In the meantime, they keep sending the annoying SMS with a hope that somebody is kind enough to reply "YES". When all their attempts failed, they can only wait until end of the month or early of the month, that is when their own pocket is filled up with something or when their "financier" is back to track to provide "FAMA" loan again. In case you forget who is the financier, refer to (a) above.

(d) Some of them even smart enough to squeeze their BF / GF's pocket to the last drop of the juice so that they can get a smart phone. This squeezing part continue from time to time because the "topping up" is always required. The BF / GF got no choice. They have to let themselves being squeezed or else they get nothing to "squeeze" whenever the need arrive!

All those people falls under the above is what Malay called "BIAR PAPA ASAL BERGAYA".

Having said so much of my observations, I must however not putting a blame on smart phones at all. Be smart before you get a smart phone. If your pocket don't allow you, hold back until your pocket give a green light. It must be your own pocket giving that green light, not others pocket(s). Otherwise, stay to whatever phone(s) that you have. Don't rush into getting one and trying to be smart when you are not at all.

I must also give credit to many of whom I know who "know how deep is their pocket". These are the smart people! Keep it up, not only about smart phone, but other stuff as well. That is the way to be smart. Know your pocket before you act.

Why do I said so much? Because I have been consistently receiving that "ANNOYING SMS"!

Come one people, know how deep is your pocket before you ashamed yourself.

Tulis dalam BM plak

Baru je Cik Aje carut blog aku ni. Katenye susah nak baca. Ye ke? haha...Kate Cik Aje lagi, blog aku update setahun sekali. Hahahaha..Pape pun, xde idea nak update ape malam2 buta ni. Cik Aje lain ah, hari2 update sampai beberapa post hahaha.

Lawyers' Current Burden

There was a letter sent to the New Straits Times by a person known as "A.O.H." from Seremban which was publish on 22/02/2011. The contents read as follows (which I now quote from NST Online at the following link: http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/21ciarq/Article):-

"PRACTISING law used to be fulfilling, but litigation lawyers are suffering from stress brought about by changes in the judicial system.

First, the judiciary brought forward court cases to 8.30am without thinking about the difficulty posed to lawyers or litigants who have to travel out of town to court, or the fact that the earliest flight from Kuala Lumpur to Penang would not get lawyers to court on time.

Lawyers, clients and litigants rush to get to court at 8.30am, but find that judges or magistrates arrive at 9am.

There are even judges who insist on starting with applications at 8am, so that they can start their trials at 8.30am.

Then came night court. There was a time when judges would hear cases until 9pm, often without the consent of lawyers, parties and interpreters, and even sometimes without air-conditioning. I have come out of court at 9pm.

Next came key performance indicators.

Orders to judicial officers to complete pre-2000 cases meant the judiciary awoke from its long slumber and began sprinting like Jamaica's Olympic winner Usain Bolt.

The intention may be good, but the implementation was not.

Many judges and magistrates took short cuts, allowing summary judgments or allowing striking-out applications when they should not have, striking out cases for trivial reasons and refusing adjournments for valid reasons, ultimately sacrificing justice for statistics.

Justice hurried is justice buried. Guidelines on the granting of adjournments were misunderstood and, until today, most judges remain adamant that lawyers can get adjournments only if they are dying.

Meanwhile, judges, magistrates and registrars continue to adjourn matters when they are on emergency leave, medical leave, annual leave, away on courses, attending seminars, attending official or state functions and attending judges' conferences.

Let's move on to the tracking system and computerised case listings in courts. We've got cases on C-track, T-track, M-track, A-track, fast track, slow track and, worst of all, no track.

We've got computers telling us our cases are listed or unlisted. Recently, I went to a department at the Shah Alam courts in the MRCB building, keyed in my case number, found my case was unlisted, was told to go to the kiosk to enquire and was sent by the kiosk to the third floor to go through a thick manual of case numbers to find the registrar's name.

Then, after finding out which floor the registrar was on, I went to that registrar's room and found the door locked with a notice stating that that registrar was away and to go to the kiosk to find out who the replacement registrar was.

We've got magistrates, Sessions Court judges, High Court judges, Court of Appeal and Federal Court judges who need to improve on their knowledge of law.

It has to be remembered that it is a great responsibility to decide on matters that have strong ramifications for litigants and parties.

Judges, magistrates and registrars must keep abreast of the law if they want to dispense justice fairly and competently.

The proposed amendments to increase the jurisdiction and power of Sessions Court judges and magistrates is even more worrying because of the quality of these judicial officers.

I often see lawyers doing tonnes of research, producing and submitting case authorities to registrars, magistrates and judges but to no avail.

Many registrars, magistrates and judges also restrict submissions to five pages.

Some judges and magistrates force lawyers to submit on the spot after their case ends, yet they themselves cannot decide on the spot.

Recently, courts were fitted with a video and voice recording system.

Judges and magistrates can save time and effort instead of writing down every word.

Again, a good idea but with bad implementation.

Courts abroad can produce and send the transcript of trials to lawyers or parties within a few hours after the close of hearing each day, but not here.

Even with this system, courts tell lawyers to prepare and submit a disc to obtain the recording, then take the disc back and get the transcript typed out for the court's approval.

Another recent event is the judiciary issuing letters to legal firms to fix new dates, bring forward or change dates for hearings, appeals, case management, mediation, mentions and show causes.

When there are conflicting dates, as is usually the case now, the courts' response to lawyers is: "That's your problem. No adjournment."

These, and other problems that lawyers face, have been raised in many meetings between the bar and the bench.

The chief justice said he had taken note of these problems and would brief his officers, but we don't see any improvement.

Most pre-2000 and many up to 2008 cases have already been disposed of. The judiciary can now afford to take off some of the pressure. To a certain extent, the chief justice achieved something to be proud of, but not without causing a lot of hardship.

In my home state, we have a joint working committee with our judiciary.

But even then, judges are not as receptive to the requests of the Bar as they used to be.

I am compelled to write this letter because the Bar Council has failed to stand up and protect its own members "without fear or favour". I hear more and more lawyers complaining about the Bar Council's inaction and silence these days."

The end result - litigants suffering from paying high legal fees. The Bar Council expects lawyers' fees for court cases to increase by between 300% and 400% this year. Years back, you can expect to pay probably around RM2,000 to RM3,000 for legal fees to take up a matter to the Magistrate Court. Now, it may rise up to RM8,000 or higher. Too hard to swallow? Indeed, but lawyers are not taking advantage of the current situation nor attempting to make more profits. The increase is attributed to the increase of responsibilities and long working hours that lawyers need to swallow in line with the currently implemented fast tracking system by the Judiciary. Cases filed into Courts nowadays need to be disposed off within 9 months.

It could be quite disturbing now that access to legal services has become less despite it is a basic consumer and human right.

The NEX-3

It has been too long since my last blog posting - way back in March 2008! Way too long. I intended to resume blogging in January this year. Time flies and that did not happen. It is now already end of February. Rather late than never. Lets get the engine starts running.

I bought a Sony NEX-3 Compact Interchangeable Lens Camera December last year. Interchangeable lens camera was primarily dominated by Micro Four Thirds models from Olympus and Panasonic. In recent years, Sony ventured into the risk of producing its own Alpa-Nex series; started off with Sony NEX-3, followed by Sony NEX-5. The NEX-3 uses a larger APS-C sensor—the same one used in Sony's smallest and lightest D-SLR, the Alpha-A230.

I was in dilemma to choose between a D-SLR camera or the NEX-3. Eventually, I opted to the NEX-3 after much considerations and surveys simply because the NEX-3 can compete with D-SLRs that fetch twice of the price of the NEX-3, offering superb image quality, speed, and a robust feature set in the smallest body I've seen in this class of camera. I have no regret owning the NEX-3, not at the moment at least.

The NEX-3 offers 2 type of lens. Sony called them "E-Amount" lens. The 16mm f/2.8 kit lens and the 18-55mm f/4.5-5.6 kit lens. I opted to the later. The NEX-3 offers full VGA resolution, the 921,600-pixel 3-inch LCD on the NEX-3 is the sharpest of any compact interchangeable lens camera I've seen, and it's easy to view in even the brightest light.

The best part is its size. This 311.8 grams camera measures just 2.4 by 4.4 by 2.4 inches, small enough to comfortably stow in a coat pocket or purse, ideal for travelling purposes without missing the opportunity to capture superb quality photos. Its limited but user friendly dedicated controls—a shutter release with zoom toggle, power, and playback buttons, in addition to a scroll wheel and three variable buttons contributes to the NEX-3's compact design. The display is amazing. Its sit on an articulating arm and can tilt as far as 90 degrees up or 45 degrees down, so you don't need to keep the camera at eye level to frame your shots.

What is good next? The NEX-3 features speedy start up, averaging 2 seconds between the time you power on the camera and it captures its first image. The NEX-3 also snaps 2.3 frames per second in continuous shooting mode, and an even-more-impressive 7 frames per second in Speed Priority mode. I was able to capture up to 14 consecutive images in this mode when I tested my NEX-3 on my palm!

You got to try out the NEX-3's panorama mode. Its allow you to simply move the camera up, down, left or right to create one panoramic shot. The Anti-Motion Blur feature fires six frames, analyzes each, and takes the least noisy portion of each to merge into one crisp image. Shooting HD video with the NEX-3 is a treat. Thanks to the NEX-3's larger APS-C sensor and refocusing is fast and silent. You can then watch your HD video recording via your HD TV.

Things always come with pros and cons. The NEX-3 is not an exception. At least as at now, I think that the major downside is that you have to get 2 major side accessories - the viewfinder and the flash device.

Overall, the NEX-3 produces superb image quality, low-light performance, and speed - the smallest compact interchangeable lens camera currently available. Beautiful, tilting 3-inch LCD. and silent focus when recording HD video. Try it out!