01 November, 2007

Interpretation of law is very twistable.

The RM20++ million cop is charged in court. But he claims that the ACA has leaked information bout him. The ACA as usual will depend at all costs their stand saying "We didn't leak anything...we never mentioned his name". Of course this was in retaliation against the motion that Datuk Ramli Yusuff wants to charge ACA under Section 21 (8) of the Anti-Corruption Act for leaking information.

Under such circumstances Datuk Ramli has lost that fight even before it started. Him and us have to realize one thing~ the law is subjected to various interpretation of the public as well as those in the judiciary system. Each can make assumptions of what breaches the law and what does not. Ultimately it's who at the top decides if the law is indeed been broken.

In my case to be specific~ under my understanding of AUKU I have not violated any. But some lard up there thinks that I have thus I get the boot out off varsity. You see my amiable readers, the freedom of speech and expression is so much hindered by the laws either directly or indirectly. If I were to take a point of reference it would be in the teachings of my religion (Islam). The Prophet himself is available for discourse to his merry brothers of Islam to discuss what can and cannot be done or what is allowed or not allowed.

Obviously today not just anyone can walk up to any of our leaders to talk about the understanding of the law and the powers that are vested to those who are given the "Trust". Undeniably there is a break or gap in the social chord that distance us the people from our leaders that we have in fact voted for. Now what is the use of that?

It seems to me that the more advanced society becomes (especially this one) the more alienated we become in the eyes of the law and order. We can't have gatherings in public areas without a permit~ but we paid taxes so that these public areas can be built for our use anyway. So what is the logic in that?

In Datuk Ramli's case it is a sad fact that a man could not freely own property or a business without prior consent of some parties. I mean as Malays would gently put it it is our "rezeki". It is fair gain on the effort one puts in to feed the mouths and take care the well being of their family. So what is so wrong about that? If it compromises the ability in carrying out the daily duties of an officer of the law I totally understand but why should others know what I do in my own accord and time? It's my own hard work and not theirs. As long as I pay my dues in the form of taxes and other fees that should not be of anyones concern.

So,it is highly unfortunate that a man these days can't freely gain wealth and maintain an upkeep of their family without disclosing it to some lard heads. Simply because the law says so~ To me it is a form of intrusion of privacy and human rights. As long as it is legitimate and does not cause harm to anyone else it should be fine and be left alone. ACA is not bad....it's the people in it and those controlling at the top that is as bad as rotten cheese and eggs. Jealousy sprouts to beings that are no longer civilized.


No comments: