Law, Order, Peace, Equality, Justice, etc

The Law is the rule of the land which ensures that there is Order and Justice throughout the country. However, to ensure Peace, there must be Equality in the application of the Law.

Where there is inequality (or the perception of inequality) in the application of the law, this may lead to dissent among the people. Of course, certain quarters tend to exploit this to further their own agenda. But nevertheless, as long as there is inequality in the application of the law and more and more people are becoming aware of the injustice, the voices of anger grows louder and louder.

It is an open secret that we have corrupt people in the government administration. I believe that there are some who are not corrupt and do things by the book in for the service of the people, i.e. literally be a Civil Servant. Unfortunately, these people form the minority. Most of them, would have no choice but to be part of the corruption either directly or indirectly. Directly by taking a cut and indirectly by keeping silent on what they know, since the corruption may go all the way to the top!

Theoretically they can report the act of corruption by their superiors directly to the MACC. But the trouble is that based on the majority (or rather the public's perception) of the MACC's findings of an investigation is that there is 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute the accused. And what would happen to the whistleblower? He or she would be transfered to the 'cold storage' and that would be the end of their career in the department.

Yes, now we have the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2010, to 'protect' the witnesses. But its effectiveness is yet to be seen. We have very good laws in Malaysia, unfortunately we have very poor enforcement. Come to think of it, we don't need more laws. We need more enforcement. Equal enforcement to be exact. Not just enforcing the law on the 'little fish' but the 'big fish' as well.

The trouble with the Malaysian 'system' is that we have no confidence in our agencies. Say for example, I'm just a lowly Constable in the Police force and I have information that the Assistant Commissioner is engaged in corrupt or improper practices. And let's say that I put my faith on the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2010 and report the Assistant Commissioner's practices directly to the Commissioner or the Inspector General of Police or the MACC.

Theoretically speaking, such complaints should be taken seriously and investigated upon. But practically speaking, chances are, whoever the report goes to (or someone along the chain of custody of the report), is going to give a 'courtesy call' to the Assistant Commissioner just to inform him that he is being investigated. And the Assistant Commissioner, being in the department for so many years would have his own network to find out who exactly made the report and be able to get the identity of the Whistleblower.

The Whistleblower Protection Act, 2010 will not keep people's mouth shut. It won't prevent the leaking of information even if the document is stamped 'RAHSIA' under the Official Secrets Act. Yes, officially it is a secret, but then there is always the 'unofficial secret' which is kept between those within the chain of custody of such reports.

I find it difficult to belief that such reports can be kept confidential in Malaysia. Say if I want to trace a mobile phone number to the owner and get his or her address. Is it possible? Officially no, the mobile phone company's policy is not to give such details to anyone unless the police is involved. You can try asking yourself at the customer service centre. This is what the person at the mobile telephone operator customer service officer said. But I was still able to get the information unofficially since I have friends working in the management. This is the Malaysian way.

So coming back to our Constable, he's going to end up being transfered to cold storage and kiss his career prospects goodbye.

The trouble with corruption cases involving the 'big fish' is that most of the time there are 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute them and in the end, the 'little fish' are prosecuted, as they are the proxies used by the big fish, i.e. the paper trail would end with the 'small fish' and the trail goes cold, hence the big fish would be let off.

It is pretty obvious, if someone were to be involved in corrupt practices, he or she would think of how not to get caught. And the best way is by using proxies who get a small cut for their 'services'.

I think many Malaysians are sick of reading news of people accused of corruption, only to be set free due to the lack of evidence. I am just wondering, why don't the MACC collaborate with the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) in ALL the corruption cases?

I am no lawyer, but, I am aware of the concept of 'burden of proof' in the rule of law. In order to prosecute someone and send them to jail for corruption, the burden of proof lies with the MACC to proof that the gains were from the alleged corrupt practices. Where the MACC fails to prove that the the wealth and gains accumulated were through corrupt practices, the accused goes free.

And most of the time, this would be the case, since the paper trail just dies with the 'small fish'. However, if the IRB were to be involved in every corruption case, the burden of proof shifts to the accused!

When the IRB conducts a Tax Investigation on the individual accused, they would prepare something called a Capital Statement. This is a list of assets and liabilities of the accused, normally spanning over 7 years. The concept is pretty simple, any increase in net assets from one year to another would be due to the revenue earned during that year. This revenue would then be compared with the income declared by the accused in their tax returns. The difference would be income under declared.

Say for example, if the net asset in 2007 is worth RM1million and in 2008 is worth RM1.5million. The difference would be RM500,000, this (plus estimated living expenses of say RM50,000) would be the income for year 2008, i.e. RM550,000. If the actual income declared was RM150,000. The difference of RM400,000 would be the under-declaration of income. This would be subjected to tax of say 28% and a further penalty of 45% to 100% on the tax liability!

Where a Capital Statement is prepared, the burden of proof lies with the tax payer to explain the 'increase' in the net asset. If it can't be explained, therefore it is an under-declaration of income, therefore the tax liability and penalty need to be paid.

So, even if the MACC is unable to convict these people, at least the government is still able to collect the taxes due to them by these corrupt individuals.

In this case, double jeopardy would not apply, MACC is investigating for corrupt practices while IRB would be investigating for under-declaration of income. One may argue that since the income was due to illegal means it is not subject to tax. However, as decided by the case law of Partridge vs Mallandaine, the word 'income' is not limited to only legal 'vocation', therefore income from illegal means are also subject to tax.

Just like how Elliot Ness was able to prosecute and send the famous mafia boss Al Capone to jail. Not by all the illegal activities he conducted, since there was 'no evidence' to link him. In the end Al Capone was sent to jail for evading taxes. I think if the government is serious in getting the corrupt, they should assign a team of IRB officers to conduct a simultaneous investigation with the MACC.

If the MACC can't get them, the IRB will. And in a good case, they both will get the corrupt and the government will gain from the tax revenue recovered. So in terms of cost benefit, this is a win - win situation for the government in terms of revenue and perception that they are serious in fighting corruption. It is also a win for the people because justice is served one way or another!

Looking at the big picture

Why don't people look at the big picture? If everyone looked at the bigger picture, I think the world would be a better place to live in!

Lately I've been observing our PDRM hard at work, putting up road blocks or hiding behind bill boards or behind bushes to 'catch' traffic offenders. Mind you, these are not the white uniformed traffic police, but the blue uniformed ones.

So, now we have the blue uniformed police officers, the white uniformed police officers and the JPJ officers to catch traffic offenders who are driving without a licence or committing minor offences such as double parking or not waiting for the traffic light to turn green at a ridiculously positioned traffic light or someone making an illegal turn.

Why are 3 different uniformed bodies so obsessed with catching those committing minor offences?

Can we please look at the bigger picture? How about the traffic police actually direct traffic flow at Permas Jaya or Pasir Gudang during peak hour to ease the congestion?

How about the blue uniformed police do their rounds and prevent robberies at neighbourhoods or stop snatch thefts or even prevent kidnaps and missing children cases? How about the unsolved crimes?

Why don't the police let the job of inspecting driving licences to the JPJ? Why do we need 3 different authorities to regulate such a minor thing like not having a valid driving licence?

Can we please look at the bigger picture? There are bigger crimes to be solved, and yet all these authorities seemed to be doing is checking people's driving licences!

A Man's Word Is Worth His Weight in Gold

I'm a firm believer in the above statement. In fact, if you ask anyone, chances are, they would subscribe to the same belief as well. However, how many of us consciously put it into practice?

Yeah, perhaps you may make it a point to keep 'major' or 'important' promises, but what about the little ones you make and break on a periodic basis?

I heard in a seminar by T. Harv Eker (The Millionaire Mind Intensive, which I would encourage everyone to go) the following saying, which I've adopted as my 'mantra' now:

"How you do anything, is how you do everything!"

Meaning to say, you need to be consistent with your actions no matter small or trivial it is, as that would be how you'd react in a major event.

I've come across many people (especially friends and colleagues) who love to make little promises they don't intend to keep. Say for example, if you bump into an old friend while shopping, catch up a little and exchange numbers. And just before you part ways you tell him "I'll call you sometime", will you really follow up with a call? Or would you let it slide?

Or let's say he said that to you? Would you expect him to call?

If the answer is no, why make the remark in the first place? If you were sincere, then you should call him. Otherwise, don't say that you'd call. Just exchange numbers and that's it.

How about keeping your appointments? Say you promise your client that you'd meet him at 10 am. I bet you'd probably make the time. If it was a big case, you'd probably be there around 9.30 am waiting for him!

If you could be on time for your client, why can't you do the same for your friend? Let's say you really can't make the time due to some unforeseen circumstances, you would at least call your client to notify him of your delay. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to your friends?

Why the double standards? How you do anything, is how you do everything! For those in the sales line, over time, you'd build a reputation with your clients. And in time, most of your clients would end up being your friends. So, once they are classified as 'friends' then you'd start applying your normal 'friends' timing, taking your client-friend for granted.

I just find it appalling that many people love to make promises and then conveniently forget it later on. It may be a small issue, say promising someone that you'd call or even a promise to buy someone dinner!

You may say it as a passing remark, but the person you gave the promise to, may not forget it. I've experienced many situations where people wanted to borrow a certain amount of cash and promises to pay me back by a certain date. And when that date arrives, there's no news of the cash. Not even a courtesy call to apologise for the delay or even a request for an extension!

I mean, the least you could do, if you are still short of cash or haven't sorted your finances yet, is to tell me so! Come on, at that time when you really needed the cash, you can call me a 100 times, send me so many smses, desperately asking me for the cash, but when the due date that YOU promised me arrives, no news! Nothing!

You conveniently 'forget' that you even owe me money. No courtesy call, no request for extension, no apology. Nothing!

Why is it you expect me to chase you for it? I find it sad that when you need cash, you remember my number, but when you have it, you can forget you owe me cash? It's not like I'm charging interest!

The above is intended particularly to 3 people who are NOT on my facebook. Just to set the record straight, this does not apply to some of my friends who owe me cash for their insurance premiums, we are cool because you guys always keep me updated. So, if you are reading this and are on my facebook, don't worry, it's not about you ;)

Anyway, back to the topic. Why can't people stick to their words? Why do people have the habit of making promises they can't or don't intend to keep? Or at least even feel bad that they can't keep to their promise?

A man's word is worth his weight in gold! If you can't keep your word, you are worth nothing!

What Do You Believe In?

What do you believe in? Some may ask what is your religion? Does it really matter? If you were to tell me you want to know just for 'talking point', then you'd better be prepared to question your own faith before you raise this topic with me.

I'd like to think of myself as an Agnostic. Unfortunately, the government of Malaysia does not recognize this category as a 'religion'. In fact, come to think of it, is it illegal for one NOT to have a religion? If you look at the Malaysian Pledge, the first pledge is 'Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan', or "Believe In God'. So, if you don't believe in God, does it mean you are not Malaysian?

Personally, I'd like it if the term 'religion' is replaced with 'beliefs' instead since 'religion' indicates a belief in a 'higher' being watching over us, while some of us don't actually believe that, nor can we deny the existence of such a being.

For the uninitiated, Agnosticism should not be confused with Atheists. Atheists are people who DO NOT believe in the existence of God. Agnostics on the other hand are more interested in the 'Truth'. Therefore, Agnostics do not reject the idea of God nor do they follow it. Of course if you Wiki the term Agnostic, they'll go into different categories of Agnostics which is just mind boggling.

For the record, Agnosticism is NOT an 'organised' religion. It is not even a religion. It is just a belief restricted to the individual. There are no teachings, nor books, nor associations, nor weekly assemblies, etc. It is basically your own belief on what is the truth about life.

Of course the religious people would call us 'fence sitters'. Some of these religious people would 'pity' us because they feel we are 'lost' and would be damned to hell since I do not prescribe to their version on what is the 'truth' about God and etc....

The other extreme would look 'down' on the 'Godless heathen' or even assume that I am the Devil's Advocate, trying to convince them away from their believe in God!

I'm a believer of religious freedom. Who am I to tell you what you believe is wrong? Being a self described Agnostic, I can't say that you are wrong in your belief. For every evidence I can put forth that you are wrong about your beliefs, you can show me a 'miracle' which proves me otherwise. So, why should I convince you that you are wrong when I am not sure whether I am right?

But what annoys me is that when people come to talk to me with the intention of 'convincing' me to believe in their religion, but they themselves are not open to accepting my views. So, how is it fair that I must keep an open mind and listen to YOUR version of the truth and try to accept it, while you are not willing to do the same with MY version of the truth?

So what is the truth? Actually, no one is certain. No one can guarantee 100% that their beliefs are 100% true. Why not? Because there is no concrete evidence. No solid proof. Some may say that their Holy book(s) which was written thousands of years ago is the truth, because it was written thousands of years ago or because that particular book says it is the truth! I mean, just because something is old or it says it is the truth, doesn't mean it is!

If I am able to build a time machine (assuming it is really possible to do so) and I am to go back in time and leave the Star Wars series in the hands of some guy 2 to 3 thousand years ago, I'm willing to bet there would be many believers in 'The Force' and the Star Wars series would actually be a 'documentary' instead of a movie! Get my point?

Since there is no way to 'prove' 100% beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the truth, there is a word which is used with all religion. It is called Faith. Faith is a belief, not upon evidence, but by your instincts (or gut feeling) on the truth.

So, if you have faith in what you believe in, who am I to take that faith away from you? On the same note, since you have faith in what you believe in, who are you to deny another person's belief?

If you wish to 'share' your beliefs, then be prepared to open up to another person's beliefs too and be prepared to change your beliefs at the same time.

As for myself, I am no religious scholar. I'm just an accountant, trying to get a nut in this world. But I have done my fair share of learning about the various religions such as Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Bahaism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism, Wicca, Voodoo and other 'Pagan' religions to name a few. I'm willing to bet that some of you have never heard of some of the religions I've mentioned above!

So how much do you know about the 'other' religion for you to actually 'criticize' that their followers are 'wrong'? What makes you think that you are right?

If what you believe in is the truth, why are there so many other versions of the 'truth'? There could only be one truth. When there's so many versions, surely something is not right? Or could it be they are all right?

Personally, I'd like to think of all these religions as different paths leading to the same destination. It's a matter of choice and no one person has the right to say to another that their choice or path is wrong. At the end of the day, we would only know the truth when we are no longer alive. So, in the meantime please respect another person's beliefs even though it differs from yours ;)