YOURSAY ‘While the law may be open to interpretation, facts are not. Either you did or you did not.’
'Slap offer not an offence if Kok not slapped'
Anonymous_4031: Satire is a comedy; and leaders all over the world get lampooned left and right. If you cannot stand jokes, then stay away from the jester's court.
The cost of living has gone up; and the poor people especially are getting "slapped" left and right. To divert their attention from their woes, rabble-rousers, bigots and racists have been making irrational noises.
As the saying goes, "Empty vessels make the most noise." So here are the empty vessels, beating milk tins and making noise to deafen the cries of suffering people.
If the authorities are deaf and dumb, then they are acting irresponsibly and are not fit to be leaders.
Corgito Ergo Sum: Dear lawyer Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, while the law may be open to interpretation, facts are not. Either you did or you did not.
If the Yakuza or the Mafia puts out a contract on someone, your take would be that it is not an offence until the contract is fulfilled.
I wonder where you studied law. Your professors too must be given a slap.
Tan Kim Keong: Mohd Khairul Azam, give yourself some credibility by citing relevant sections of the Penal Code to support your assertion (that the ‘cash for slap’ offer is not an offence if Seputeh Teresa Kok not slapped).
If you cannot, then refrain from making the assertion.
Hplooi: Download the Penal Code here.
Act 574 (Penal Code), Section 153 (Wantonly giving provocation, with intent to cause riot). Even if a riot did not occur, the inciter will still be liable for incitement.
Section 503 (criminal intimidation) - a threat itself is sufficient for prosecution.
Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace). Again, the intentional act of insult is sufficient for prosecution.
Section 505c (Statements conducing to public mischief). "Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report - (c) with intent to incite or which is likely to incite any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community of persons."
So, enough to nail those miscreants by their balls or not?
My Opinion: Every first-year law student knows it is an offence to suggest, invite, offer, encourage someone to commit an offence (whether the offence is actually committed).
The offence here is not whether the offer of X is done but the 'offer' itself constituted both actus reus and mens rea, i.e. the act of offering and the mental state of affair of the offeror's malice intent.
If one encourages the rakyat to go against the Agong but no one makes a move, he nevertheless shall either be guilty of treason or the attempt to commit treason. Unless he has a good defence (which I will not teach him here), he is guilty.
Malaysia and United Kingdom have many judicial precedents on this. The only problem is whether the police are willing to enforce the law.
Vision2020: Threat constitutes criminal mind and malicious intent and by this verbal action and motive to harm another person, the victim can sue the aggressor and seek justice through judicial action, like libel lawsuits.
Speechless: I don't understand Mohd Khairul Azam's logic, or perhaps there is none.
Why make an offer in the first place when he knows fully well that if the offer was taken up and Teresa Kok gets slapped, the person slapping her would have committed an offence? Is this not encouraging people to commit the offence by enticing them with a cash reward?
This is also a very dangerous precedent because irresponsible people may take it a step further by offering cash rewards for killing other people.
By Mohd Khairul Azam's logic, this is not an offence because no one has been killed yet. Isn't this is miles worse than Teresa Kok's video which merely poked fun at issues which we all talk about anyway?
Versey: This lawyer is making a fool of himself in the eyes of the world. It appears the home minister's argument that offering a bounty to slap somebody is not a threat and does not warrant police investigation has further encouraged this lawyer and the group of NGOs.
Where has the PM gone? Please come forth and say something sensible to show to the rakyat and the world that you are still in control of the country.
Nobrain: What kind of lawyer is this? So if someone point a gun at you, it is not a threat. And if he does fire a shot and kill you, it becomes a threat. Stupid.
Continue-The-March: Can the Bar Council verify where Mohd Khairul Azam got his law degree and if he is a qualify lawyer to practice in this country?
Anti-Dumno: What happen to someone who says he will bomb a mosque or church? Is that not a threat unless the act has been done? - Malaysiakini
'Slap offer not an offence if Kok not slapped'
Anonymous_4031: Satire is a comedy; and leaders all over the world get lampooned left and right. If you cannot stand jokes, then stay away from the jester's court.The cost of living has gone up; and the poor people especially are getting "slapped" left and right. To divert their attention from their woes, rabble-rousers, bigots and racists have been making irrational noises.
As the saying goes, "Empty vessels make the most noise." So here are the empty vessels, beating milk tins and making noise to deafen the cries of suffering people.
If the authorities are deaf and dumb, then they are acting irresponsibly and are not fit to be leaders.
Corgito Ergo Sum: Dear lawyer Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, while the law may be open to interpretation, facts are not. Either you did or you did not.
If the Yakuza or the Mafia puts out a contract on someone, your take would be that it is not an offence until the contract is fulfilled.
I wonder where you studied law. Your professors too must be given a slap.
Tan Kim Keong: Mohd Khairul Azam, give yourself some credibility by citing relevant sections of the Penal Code to support your assertion (that the ‘cash for slap’ offer is not an offence if Seputeh Teresa Kok not slapped).
If you cannot, then refrain from making the assertion.
Hplooi: Download the Penal Code here.
Act 574 (Penal Code), Section 153 (Wantonly giving provocation, with intent to cause riot). Even if a riot did not occur, the inciter will still be liable for incitement.
Section 503 (criminal intimidation) - a threat itself is sufficient for prosecution.
Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace). Again, the intentional act of insult is sufficient for prosecution.
Section 505c (Statements conducing to public mischief). "Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report - (c) with intent to incite or which is likely to incite any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community of persons."
So, enough to nail those miscreants by their balls or not?
My Opinion: Every first-year law student knows it is an offence to suggest, invite, offer, encourage someone to commit an offence (whether the offence is actually committed).
The offence here is not whether the offer of X is done but the 'offer' itself constituted both actus reus and mens rea, i.e. the act of offering and the mental state of affair of the offeror's malice intent.
If one encourages the rakyat to go against the Agong but no one makes a move, he nevertheless shall either be guilty of treason or the attempt to commit treason. Unless he has a good defence (which I will not teach him here), he is guilty.
Malaysia and United Kingdom have many judicial precedents on this. The only problem is whether the police are willing to enforce the law.
Vision2020: Threat constitutes criminal mind and malicious intent and by this verbal action and motive to harm another person, the victim can sue the aggressor and seek justice through judicial action, like libel lawsuits.
Speechless: I don't understand Mohd Khairul Azam's logic, or perhaps there is none.
Why make an offer in the first place when he knows fully well that if the offer was taken up and Teresa Kok gets slapped, the person slapping her would have committed an offence? Is this not encouraging people to commit the offence by enticing them with a cash reward?
This is also a very dangerous precedent because irresponsible people may take it a step further by offering cash rewards for killing other people.
By Mohd Khairul Azam's logic, this is not an offence because no one has been killed yet. Isn't this is miles worse than Teresa Kok's video which merely poked fun at issues which we all talk about anyway?
Versey: This lawyer is making a fool of himself in the eyes of the world. It appears the home minister's argument that offering a bounty to slap somebody is not a threat and does not warrant police investigation has further encouraged this lawyer and the group of NGOs.
Where has the PM gone? Please come forth and say something sensible to show to the rakyat and the world that you are still in control of the country.
Nobrain: What kind of lawyer is this? So if someone point a gun at you, it is not a threat. And if he does fire a shot and kill you, it becomes a threat. Stupid.
Continue-The-March: Can the Bar Council verify where Mohd Khairul Azam got his law degree and if he is a qualify lawyer to practice in this country?
Anti-Dumno: What happen to someone who says he will bomb a mosque or church? Is that not a threat unless the act has been done? - Malaysiakini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.