It's been awhile, but lets waive all 'preliminary hearings' about what the heck has happened to me in the past months and focus on today's post.
Yet again, it's a politically driven article that has sent me into the urge of writing again. Check :
Legend: Green - I'm for it! Yellow - Questionable.. Red - "Like W.T.F." Bolded for emphasis (duh.)
A CONTROVERSY is brewing over a seemingly rushed parliamentary bill that gives enormous powers to Malaysian police and the Home Minister over the use of a person's DNA in criminal offences.
The bill was passed in principle last Thursday after opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim staged a walkout of opposition lawmakers to protest Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar's refusal to refer the bill to a select committee for further evaluation. But the disquiet was evident: some National Front lawmakers also expressed their anxiety over the legislation's sweeping reach.
For Mr Anwar, 61, the bill must seem to be a slowly unfolding horror personally directed against him. The former deputy prime minister is facing charges that he sodomised an aide in a case that will be mentioned later this week but has refused to give the police a fresh DNA sample. But the bill would make it for suspects to provide DNA samples on pain of a mandatory jail term.
Although he refused to refer the bill to a select committee, Mr Syed Hamid assured opposition lawmakers that the police would never misuse their powers and promised to resign if they ever did. 'There is no political motive,' he later told reporters. 'I think it's ridiculous that the opposition looks at everything as having a political motive.'
But critics say that the bill seemed draconian. They note, for instance, that the legislation empowers a senior policeman to be the head of the forensic DNA databank. They maintain that an independent body, and not the police which have a vested interest in convicting suspects, should handle collection, storage and testing of specimens.
Another clause in the bill allows a policeman to 'use all means necessary' when taking non-intimate DNA samples (saliva or hair samples, for instance) from a suspect. 'What does 'all means necessary' mean in the case of a suspect who is in police custody?' asks Michael Kumar Devaraj, a medical doctor and an opposition lawmaker from Perak state.
But what frightens people most is a section saying that 'notwithstanding any written law to the contrary, any information from the DNA databank shall be admissible as conclusive proof of the DNA identification in any proceedings in any court'.
Lawyers say that it seems to suggest that a suspect cannot ask for an independent review of the DNA evidence, meaning that the DNA databank's opinion cannot be reviewed in any way by a court of law.
Finally, the legislation provides complete immunity for the minister or any DNA databank personnel for any acts of commission or omission by the person 'in good faith'. The critics note that there is no mention of how leftover samples are to be disposed, implying that suspects could possibly be framed for other crimes.
'DNA testing is too powerful a tool to be placed solely in the hands of a police force that has shown bias against political opponents in the past,' says Dr Kumar. 'Make no mistake, this is a bad law with very serious implications.'
Where do I start?
Alright, first, let me admit that I barely know anything about the law (no, Boston Legal doesn't tell me enough) but I'm pretty adamant that I don't fluking like the idea of someone forcefully trying to shove a cotton bud into my mouth.. by "using all necessary means.."!
Alright, lets not kid ourselves. Since when have we started caring that much about criminal cases to bring us to passing DN fluggin A bills in less than a month?!
Oh wait..we do! Only some cases just don't have DNA, do they? (read - *BOOM*!)
CSI'd be proud I tell yah. Hmm.. maybe not when you realize all of a sudden that one day the tables turned and you're on the mistaken side of the law - the wrong one.
0 comments:
Post a Comment