October 19, 2009


Police often lie to suspects when questioning them, to mislead the suspect to reveal information they would otherwise not give the police. Lying is a common tool of police.

Despite the PI Bala being ex-police and knowing that police lie, Bala still believed his ex-colleague and friend in the Brickfields police who invited Bala for a teh tarik after Bala's first SD.

What Bala found instead of teh tarik was that the machinery of government had moved hyperfast and prepared a second SD negating the first SD, also Bala found the government had engaged a different lawyer for the second SD.

After presenting the second SD, Bala, his wife and children disappeared. Some time later, there was also no news of Bala's nephew, who had been close to Bala and very worried when Bala disappeared.

What happened to Bala and his relatives?

Because the police lie as a normal thing in police work, they could very well lie when presenting DNA evidence in court.

For example, the police could lie that a suspect's DNA matches the DNA from a crime scene when in fact there is NOT a match. The police could also simply decide to avoid the trouble and expense of DNA testing and claim there is a match with a suspect's DNA when actually a DNA test was never performed.

A general question: What court or judge or lawyer would allow a Bill that removes the right to challenge something in court? If no challenge is possible, the courts, judges and lawyers will be
unemployed, as they would have nothing to do.

Clause 24 of the DNA Bill prevents challenging DNA evidence in court, however, other challenges might be possible.

A court, or Parliament, may be able to challenge the validity of the Bill itself.

The validity of the Bill is suspect because of the removal of judicial review.

Removing judicial review and putting handling of DNA evidence under the police violates the separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary.

The lack of judicial review is a characteristic of police states, NOT democracies.

With passage of the DNA Bill, Malaysia is officially a police state, although it has been an unofficial police state for some decades, thanks in large part to Mahathir's molest and rape of the judiciary, including ending trial by jury.

Malaysia URGENTLY needs a return of trial by jury.

Have you noticed, in all the talk by the government about judicial reforms, trial by jury has NEVER been mentioned?

That's because trial by jury is what the government fears MOST.

The absence of trial by jury is the MOST powerful tool the government has against the rakyat, even more powerful than the ISA.

That is why the government has talked of reviewing the ISA but NEVER, not even ONCE, spoken of considering a return of trial by jury.

When there is trial by jury, the rakyat, not a judge, decides guilt or innocence of an accused.

The government can control a judge but it can't control the rakyat, that's why the government is truly terrified of trial by jury.

Please excuse any typos i may have missed, my cat Claws 24 was helping me write by stepping on the keyboard.

Written by Pakac Luteb