Innocent until proven guilty: The principle of the law is simple, all accused are guaranteed legal representation by the Federal Constitution. – 123rf.com

THE comment by Perlis Mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin about it being sinful for a lawyer to defend people who are known to have committed offences, has raised many eyebrows. In fact, that action is hair-raising.

It’s disturbing for many Malaysians, especially for those who perceive an increasing tide of such radical religious interpretations in our country.

Asri went further by saying that the sin of taking money from offenders is worse than income from prostitution.

According to a news report last week, he explained himself to several lawyers on their career path if they chose to be defence counsels to alleged offenders.

Asri’s comments rightly earned a rebuke from Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who issued a reminder on the principle that a person is “innocent until proven guilty,” adding that lawyers had no power to declare whether a person was guilty or innocent.

The principle of the law is simple: an accused – including a cleric – is guaranteed legal representation by the Constitution.

In February, celebrity preacher Ebit Lew was slapped with 11 charges of sexual harassment at an interior court in Sabah.

The 37-year-old, who was charged under Section 509 of the Penal Code, pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted, he could face up to five years in jail or a fine, or both.

Ilmami Ahmad, who appeared for the prosecution, was assisted by deputy public prosecutor Azreen Yas Mohamad Ramli, while Ebit was represented by Zairi Zainal Abidin.

Ebit may have been charged, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and even then, he is eligible to many stages of appeal in the higher court.

Going by Asri’s logic, Ebit would have been denied his right to legal representation, unless Asri meant a consistent criminal. But even then, it doesn’t mean the serial offender is responsible for every crime, unless proven otherwise, of course.

Asri himself has reportedly faced defamation suits, and he surely must have sought the advice of his lawyers. That would surely be the sensible thing to do.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. That aside, imagine the consequences if no lawyers are provided for defences, according to Asri’s warped logic. There would be no trials and with no trials, conviction would be impossible unless the accused pleads guilty from the outset.

Then, there are the questions of insanity, diminished capacity, duress, mistake, infancy and entrapment, which may be the defence’s arguments, or in the worst case, mitigating factors. However, only trained defence lawyers can handle such cases competently.

Wan Junaidi dismissed Asri’s remarks, saying, if receiving payment and legal fees was sinful, then no Muslims would want to become lawyers. I’m sure there are many Muslim lawyers who would dismiss Asri’s “revelation”.

If I may humbly add, thank God Malaysia has a proper legal system that’s mainly based on the common law legal system. The supreme law of the country and the Federal Constitution set out the legal framework and rights of every citizen.

The country provides for a unique dual justice system – the secular laws for criminal and civil cases and syariah laws for Muslims, particularly on family and religious matters.

Asri’s position on legal fees is hard to fathom. Surely, as professionals, lawyers are expected to be paid for their services unless they do it on a pro bono basis.

To equate legal fees with prostitution is simply uncalled for, no matter how one puts it, especially in a religious argument.

Surely, Asri can’t expect Muslim lawyers to now seek his advice if they wish to take on cases involving clients who may be found guilty later or have a record of offences.

Have we come to a point where clerics like Asri have also become a reference point for legal matters or for lawyers who are unsure or uncomfortable about such cases?

Even in corporate and civil cases, there would be clients deemed powerful with all the resources at their disposal acting against the common man, for example, a bank repossessing a low-cost home of people who can’t service their loans.

Does Asri also equate the lawyer representing the bank to a prostitute, when essentially, his client is doing what is procedurally correct, as mutually agreed, by the bank and borrower in the agreement even if it looks heartless?

Clerics, regardless of their faith, are powerful and influential, but they need to be checked and reminded if they’re wrong, like everyone else, regardless of their position because they are mere mortals, not God.

Found guilty: Sam was sent off to jail while her lawyers filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal. – China Press

We need to learn from this sad episode and put a stop to dangerous activities like ‘basikal lajak’ racing on our roads.

THE harsh jail sentence imposed on Sam Ke Ting over a devastating fatal accident nearly five years ago, has generated national debate. In the 3.20am incident on Feb 18, 2017, eight teenagers on modified bicycles (basikal lajak) were killed.

The High Court sentenced the clerk to six years’ jail and a fine of RM6,000 for reckless driving, which resulted in the deaths of these cyclists in Johor Baru.

Adding to her woes, a request for a stay of execution was denied, so Sam was sent off to jail while her lawyers filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal.

Let’s hope this appeal secures Sam her stay of execution because she’s neither a hardcore criminal nor flight risk.

Even those convicted of gross corruption are still walking freely while they await their appeals to be heard.

Sam would need a quick hearing, or else she would be locked up. But it may take up to six months before the Bench deliberates on her case. With the certificate of urgency, hopefully the Court of Appeal could meet on this sooner.

High Court Judge Justice Abu Bakar Katar had ruled that the magistrate’s court had erred in accepting the defence of Sam, who had proven she didn’t drive recklessly and had adhered to traffic laws. She had even been acquitted twice.

While Abu Bakar would have made his decision based on the facts of the case and laws, one can also understand why his decision has enraged many Malaysians, with their sentiments well displayed on social media.

Many of these reactions seem valid, really. To put it bluntly, this is common sense, particularly for those who have experienced near-mishaps with these reckless cyclists who think they own our highways.

Anyone driving along the highways at 3am expecting a smooth ride would get a scare if a gang of these cyclists suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

We can talk about the merits of the law, but most of us would surely be caught off guard, and no one in their right mind would want to collide with these youngsters.

You can be driving on a straight road and minding your own business, but if a gang of such cyclists suddenly swerves from the left side dangerously and recklessly, hitting your vehicle even, who’s at fault then?

But in the Johor case, all these are moot points because sadly, a catastrophic tragedy took place. One can imagine the remorse and guilt that Sam must endure for her part in the deaths of these youngsters.

She will have to live with this for the rest of her life.

It doesn’t help to debate now whether the blame should be on these minors who should know better than to roam around on the roads at 3am.

Their parents have been devastated and surely they have been tormented by a lot of abuse, too.

Five years later, with the case given a fresh twist, social media chatter has again haunted the parents, who have been accused of neglect. Irresponsibly but in typical Malaysian style, even racist rhetoric has surfaced.

All this will not bring the kids back, and neither will jailing Sam for six years. The point here is, what have we learned from this sad episode?

Have such dangerous activities stopped?

Have laws been drawn up and enforced to ban such modified bicycles, or do the authorities and parents still think there are more important matters to worry about – until the next major accident?

Highways are not meant for racing – not for cars, motorcycles, and certainly not modified bicycles.

We don’t need another bright politician to propose building racing parks for these youngsters.

We take road safety lightly. By now, we’re all familiar with the common scene at every traffic light – almost every delivery person will try to beat the lights.

Yet, many of us even tolerate and accept such disregard for safety because we think these are people merely trying to earn a decent living and that their wages depend on the speed of delivery and the number of trips they make. They should be excused. Kesian (pity).

One wonders whether these delivery companies even drum in them the importance of safety.

Hasnan Badi, a Malaysian downhill mountain bike racer with 15 years of racing experience, said the modified bicycles with cut-down handlebars and perhaps even no brakes, don’t provide proper control with the position the riders are riding in.

In an interview with paultan.org, he said roads were not the place for bicycle racing, except in controlled conditions, saying “it comes down to safety and education.

“If the kids are not educated on safety by the parents and the parents are not aware of what their children are doing, then this situation will happen again.”

He, however, said that drivers are also required to always be responsible and in control of their vehicle, adding that “drivers must be aware and be prepared to take necessary action to avoid accidents where possible.”

Finally, let’s not forget what the late William Orville Douglas, an American Supreme Court judge said, that common sense often makes good law.

Opened borders: A health worker administering a test at a Covid-19 screening centre at KLIA2. Malaysia began to allow quarantine-free entry for fully vaccinated travellers from April 1. – Bloomberg

LET’S hope that the mandatory on-arrival antigen rapid test (RTK) at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) will be short-lived.

The issue is not the option of having to take the compulsory RTK tests at the airports or in health facilities within 48 hours, but its need in the first place.

It makes little sense to have this test because just prior to departure, a traveller entering Malaysia would be required to have a polymerase chain reaction test (PCR).

For example, a traveller flying in from London would need to do a PCR test at least 48 hours before departure, and the cheapest is about £65 (RM358) for the results to be delivered within 24 hours.

If you need your test results within three hours, it will be £85 (RM468), so, there’s no logic in conducting a test 14 hours later upon arrival at KLIA.

Then, you must pay for a professional RTK-Antigen (nasal) test costing RM100 for Malaysians and RM160 for foreigners.

Imagine short haul flights involving just a few hours, or like an hour, from Singapore.

It makes little sense to take two tests in such a short period for such a simple trip.

We’re all quite aware of the price of an RTK self-test kit at pharmacies, be it the nasal or saliva versions. There is an option, of course – you can take an RTK test at approved health facilities for about RM60, which provides results within 48 hours.

The PCR tests for incoming travellers are imposed by Malaysia. Britain no longer requires pre-departure PCR tests or on-arrival RTK tests. Singapore still insists on pre-departure PCR tests but has done away with on-arrival tests. Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia and the Philippines have either stopped it or announced that they will do likewise soon.

There should be greater flexibility for travellers because Malaysia has already declared it is transitioning into the endemic phase of Covid-19. Honestly, Malaysia should take the lead in Asean by making travel easier.

Many Malaysian business travellers heading to Singapore prefer making day trips because accommodation in the republic isn’t exactly peanuts. Throw in the cost of the numerous tests for each flight, and it all makes little economic sense to stay there. And remember, there are thousands of people commuting between the two countries on day trips.

It’s also questionable for a single company to handle screening services for all incoming travellers at KLIA and KLIA2. Proper tender exercises may have been conducted, but it’s still a monopoly.

Malaysia Airport Holdings Berhad announced that there are four different health screening providers at the four international airports – KLIA, Penang International Airport, Kota Kinabalu International Airport and Kuching Airport.

But there is only a single service provider at each one.

The tests have become pricey because the providers must pay for the set-up, rental and operations costs. Obviously, that will be passed on to the travellers. So, why the restriction for only a sole provider instead of encouraging competition?

The screening process can also be expedited when there’s more than one provider at the airports.

Another health provider has been able to offer the RTK test at RM60 for AirAsia passengers through an exclusive arrangement at KLIA2, which simply means that it can be cheaper.

AirAsia Malaysia chief executive officer Raid Asmat is right in saying that while it welcomed the reopening of international borders, many Asean countries have made the journey easier by simplifying testing regimes for travellers.

He said as Covid-19 tests become increasingly essential for travellers, the affordability of the mandatory testing would also harness the attractiveness of Malaysia as a preferred tourism destination.

So, how long must travellers put up with these on-arrival RTK tests when other countries have decided to be less cumbersome and, well, more competitive, by abandoning them?

Cynical Malaysians ailed by trust issues with the authorities could be forgiven for thinking that the compulsory RTK tests is just another cash cow, even though it’s not. However, it’s difficult to ignore this as a precautionary measure since Malaysia isn’t out of the woods, even if we’re almost in the endemic phase.

We haven’t even resolved the ownership controversy of the MySejathera app, even though Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin has assured us that our data privacy is secure.

We need to keep Malaysia safe, but we also need to make our country competitive and stay ahead of the curve as borders are re-opened and the fight for tourism revenue accelerates.

STILL reeling from the controversy surrounding MySejahtera data protection for contact tracing mobile applications, there have even been calls to discard the system now. Of course, that’s easier said than done.

The Malaysian Medical Association has said it is time to consider relinquishing the use of MySejahtera as the country transitions into the endemic phase, adding that the app’s scanning features are no longer beneficial.

Its president, Dr Koh Kar Chai, said the app may have outlived its usefulness for contact tracing given the large number of cases within and surrounding the community.

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has also asked for the app to be done away with.

But MySejahtera is for more than just entering premises or revealing a record of vaccinations. Let’s not forget that it has become an acceptable and recognised app for Malaysians to use to enter most foreign nations.

Many countries insist on verifying if a visitor has at least two vaccinations or the added safety of a booster jab. The brand of vaccine is also a point of concern for many governments.

A large portion of the Western world, for example, doesn’t accept Sinovac, while China won’t accept Pfizer or AstraZeneca. So the reference point for now is still MySejah-tera, which is at least some form of an official declaration issued by the Malaysian Health Ministry.

Almost all countries in the world have some form of a digital contact tracing application.

If you visit Singapore, you will need to download Trace Together, which is still required for compulsory registration before entry into all premises. In Indonesia they have PeduliLindungi, while Hong Kong has the Leave Home Safe app.

To put it succinctly, all the talk of abolishing MySejahtera is premature and certainly ill-advised.

The crux of the controversy is the ownership of MySejahtera and public concern about the protection of the data of over 30 million Malaysians. There are certainly grounds for concern.

Malaysians aren’t the only ones that have raised a flag. All around the world, people are debating the same questions and demanding answers from their governments.

In Australia, for example, the concerns include what’s called “function creep”, with contact tracing information being used for other law enforcement purposes even though the country has laws preventing this.

There were also initial concerns regarding the government tracking people, which was soon allayed by its COVIDSafe app that doesn’t use GPS.

Australia’s Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre has also carried out a cyber security review to ensure that the personal information collected is limited.

It’s also not unusual for countries to use or adopt technology from foreign developers or incorporate technologies developed by governments of other countries.

For example, Colombia’s CoronApp is developed by its government but uses technologies from the Singapore and South Korean governments, as well as Apple.

The Fijian government reportedly launched its careFIJI app based on the BlueTrace protocol developed by the Singapore government.

Last week, Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin assured the public that the Malaysian government owns MySejahtera, adding that the Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (Mampu) and National Cyber Security Agency (Nacsa) conducted a penetration and vulnerability test before the app was launched.

He said Nacsa conducted a monthly audit trail on the MySejahtera servers and that its Cyber Coordination and Common Centre monitors the app to detect possible breaches.

The ownership and management of the MySejahtera app made headlines recently when it was revealed that KPI Soft, now known as Entomo, sold the app’s intellectual property and software licence to MySJ Sdn Bhd for an eye-watering RM338.6mil.

The sale prompted questions about the safety of the data contained on MySejahtera servers, especially when it was revealed that Entomo is owned by a Singaporean company. But Khairy has clarified that while Entomo is based in Singapore, the company’s shareholders are largely Malaysian.

I agree with Khairy that we need to adopt a more broad-minded approach because many Malaysians have set up their tech ventures outside the country, with Singapore and the United States as the preferred choices.

A digital hub isn’t just a cluster of buildings. It also encapsulates the skills and ideas from the brains behind it, with real financial backing from the government and venture capitalists.

The truth is, the Malaysian government has not done a great job with this, and one shining example is how Grab had to seek out Singapore after Malaysia had turned it down.

Founded in 2012, Grab started as the MyTaxi app based in Kuala Lumpur, but then moved to Singapore in 2014 and was rebranded as Grab after Temasek Holdings backed Vertex Venture Holdings, saying that to grow big, they had to move to Singapore. It was a missed opportunity for Malaysia.

Khairy also said the government has not paid a single sen to any parties for the management of MySejahtera, adding that no payments have been made to “KPI Soft, Entomo or MySJ”.

But this may not be the best way to handle things. The developer has provided its service to Malaysia as a corporate social responsibility (CSR) exercise for one year, but surely nothing can be free forever, especially since additional features have been included in MySejahtera.

For example, this writer has been made to understand that MySejahtera’s Helpdesk doesn’t function effectively because it lacks the ideal number of staff to handle queries and complaints from users.

The government surely can’t expect the developer to use money from its own pocket to hire workers. Here is where Khairy is right – there must be a proper agreement between the government and the developer after the one-year CSR period ends.

As for the rumoured RM338.6mil the government is set to pay MySJ for the app, Khairy said the amount was exaggerated, but added “we are in the final stages of negotiation, it is less than RM300mil’.

It will be interesting to see what the agreed figure is because while we can’t expect it to be cheap, we certainly won’t accept a hefty bill either.

It looks like we either buy the app, extend the lease or refrain from using it and create a new one.

According to various news reports, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) reportedly spent more than £35bil (RM193bil) on its contact tracing app. In March 2021, its Parliament reported that as of May 2020, NHS Test and Trace had been set up with a budget of £22bil (RM121bil). “Since then, it has been allocated £15bil (RM82.8bil) more, totalling £37bil (RM204bil) over two years.”

The amount, understandably, became a hot topic in Parliament with the Opposition describing it as “unimaginable.”

The New Zealand Herald reported that the Kiwi government paid NZ$6.4mil (RM18.64mil) to build its tracer app, while the New Daily reported Australia paid AU$8mil (RM25mil) for its own app.

Germany’s Corona-Warn-App reportedly cost the government €20mil (RM93mil).

While a smaller start-up could incur a lower cost, let’s remember that developers will always charge for additional work and features.

For now, Malaysians must insist our data is secure and not vulnerable to abuse, and that MySejahtera will have fresh features because, as the MMA rightly pointed out, it could be outdated soon. But taxpayers are certainly not expecting to foot an astronomical bill.

The World Health Organisation has said the severity of the disease caused by the Covid-19 virus would wane over time due to greater public immunity but warned that a more dangerous variant could be lurking around the corner.

I would rather stick with MySejahtera, practise physical distancing and keep my double-layer mask on than trust politicians who are asking us to dump the app.