It is frustating dealing with Little Napoleons when one pays a visit to a government department. Instead of correcting the error in our application, the Little Napoleon, will tell us that our baju has short sleeves, or the hem is too short, or that one has no tudung on.
It is frustrating dealing with some policemen at a road block, and tell him, that we had NOT been speeding, or had crossed the double white lines, or committed some traffic violation. When he says, “Macam mana mau settle?”, then your fears are confirmed. You have been set up.
It is frustrating dealing with politicians, who promise you the earth, before the election, but promptly break their promises, when we vote for them.
Who would have thought that it is equally frustrating dealing with some members of the judiciary?
A Sabah Sessions Court judge ordered the media NOT to disclose the name of a former top government official who was charged with criminal breach of trust.
The accused is a 40-year-old former Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) deputy director of Sabah and Labuan. She had been charged with six counts of misappropriating property entrusted to her involving the sum of RM17,930.
The deputy director had pleaded not guilty before Sessions Court judge Abu Bakar Manat to all charges against her.
She was accused of misusing money to facilitate and organise programmes at six schools between 15 January and 27 February, 2017.
She is being charged under Section 403 of the Penal Code. The charge carries a jail term of between six months and five years, whipping, and also a fine.
The newspaper wanted to name the individual, but the Sessions Court judge forbade the paper from publishing her name.
He said that disclosing the name of the accused “would be unfair to the woman’s schoolgoing children”.
Judge will start a nasty trend
If this is the case, then the judge may start a nasty trend, in that guilty people insist that their names are not published, to save face and further embarassment.
- The people who are charged in court, should have thought about the malu they cause their kids and family, before they committed the crime.
- The judge felt kesian for the woman’s school-going children. Does that mean he will also dish out a very lenient sentence, like “rap her knuckles” and “tell her not to do it again”?
- One always thought that judges had to do their work, without fear or favour. What is happening here?
- How many times has this happened before? Is this the first time or have their been other occasions?
- Isn’t everyone equal before the law?
- Has the judge a vested interest in this case?
- Are Malaysians subject to two sets of laws?
- Will the corrupt official have been named if she did NOT have any schoolgoing children?
- If people who commit crimes know that they will not be named and shamed, they will feel emboldened to commit more crimes. The deterrent is both in the punishment and in the publicty. There is NO deterrent if their names are not made public.
- The motivator in this case is the children. What if another judge decides that his motivator is money? This unhealthy precedent will not give Malaysians any confidence in its judiciary. What is happening to the judiciary in Malaysia? Can someone enlighten us?
A few days after this article was written, the Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak overturn the ban *5 February), and said that the media was free to publish the corrupt, ex-official’s name. See the link here.