Despite what the constitution or judges say, it is a fact that the accused is already punished beyond reasonable reasons, despite no even a single shred of evidence being presented to the judges or any third party people.
Malaysia has given so much power to the investigating officers and public prosecutors with impunity to present fabricated and false evidences, with impunity, i.e. nothing being done to them. Just by claiming that it was a tactic or honest mistake they can get away with it, but justice mandates that ignorance in so excuse, and yet this is violated when it comes to government servants, but not the citizens.
I had bad experiences with LHDN, the income tax department, who penalised me heavily despite keeping excess of my money. The judge allowed it to occur, without any written judgement, the last time I checked but this case is on record, and I shall pursue it further.
The second case, LHDN, was allowed to estimate the salary of a Federal Government servant, i.e. myself, and to ignore all explanations for more than 2 months, and yet the judge, allowed such a practise. I was even asked to pay for costs to the federal prosecutor without my knowledge at all of the decision of the judge because my lawyer was most probably bought. I have yet to receive the any written judgement. My expensive lawyer, public prosecutor and court registrar has not given me any copies of the court decision or the charge sheets at all. All these people will not run away because I shall pursue the case further.
I had some doubts about the large corruption cases in Malaysia and the huge bail money being charged. They looked more like punishments than bail. Bail is supposed to stop a person from running away without any penalty. So any security deposit must commensurate with the penalty.
I did not know for sure, until I attended a bail hearing and had to be pay the security deposit. Now it is better because they money is put into a deposit account bearing interest of 0.25% which is very low for a fixed deposit account. We should be allowed to choose our own deposit account because the court or prosecutors have the power to freeze the account.
I just realised that all the money being charged, were actually already froze, amounting to RM2 million including Epf payment and employer deposits to be paid to scholarship students.
During the bail hearing, the prosecutor just read the charges, and even present false evidences, that our lawyer cannot challenge because he was not allowed to communicate with his client. Luckily the judge was knowledgeable enough to notice the fabricated evidence. He claimed that my brother was found guilty of corruption charges previous which was completely false.
Among all the charges, two accounts that were frozen and brought to the charge sheet were EPF withdrawal and another, a deposit paid by her employer.
After this, employees will refuse any deposit made by employers to discharge their duties because of this backward and inefficient policy. Malaysia is already backward, and getting worse by the day with inefficiencies, and this court case is another reason why this is happening.
Worse, despite all the power given to the government in freezing accounts and properties, your property cannot be used as security deposits. The judge commented about the inability for the court to evaluate the value of the property and disposal of it. The SPRM had no difficulty in OVEREVALUATING the value of properties in making charges and publicing their stupidities in public. Now, when it comes to securing deposits, the judges, had not allowed SPRM to use the same evaluating strategy to evaluate properties as well.
The judges had not even considered anything at all, all the properties and accounts that had been frozen, even illegally because of the blatant stupidites of it all.
Worse, the security deposits and frozen accounts, including the illegally frozen ones, were not enough punishment. Bail is not supposed to punish, but to prevent people from running away from being brought to charges but in Malaysia, Bail is a punishment meted out even before any evidence had been brought forward. Worse, fabricated false evidences are even allowed to be brought forward and calculated in this punishment.
More punishments were meted out, including monthly reportings to the SPRM. This is actually punishment when you consider criminals on parole are required to report at designated places regularly.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/parole-conditions/
Worse, the judge had refused to even consider reducing the interval of reporting, from monthly, while under investigation, but without any security deposit, to two monthly, after payment of security deposits. This is amounting to double penalty which is unjust.
His Lordship in Soo
Shiok Liong laid down some factors
for consideration in setting the quantum of bail bond as follows, which however
is not exhaustive4:-
1.
The nature and gravity of the offence and the
severity and degree of punishment which conviction might entail; One of the relevant, but not overriding
factors to be considered;
2.
The quantum should be higher in the case of
non-bailable offences;
3.
An excessive quantum may defeat the granting of
bail;
4.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant
absconding if the bail quantum is set at too low;
5.
Bail is not intended to be punitive but only to
secure the attendance of the Accused at the trial therefore that amount of the
bond must be fixed with the regard to the circumstances and must not be
excessive;
6.
Conditions set in granting the bail such as
surrender of traveling documents should also be taken into consideration in
reducing the quantum of bail;
7.
Cooperation given by the Accused should also go
to abate the quantum of bail;
8.
The quantum of bail should not be set so
prohibitively high as to have the effect of incarcerating the Accused before he
is convicted of the crime; and
9.
Factors for consideration in setting the quantum
of bail bond-application of the Court’s mind in considering such factors to be
reflected in the judge’s records.
1
Section 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code relevant to
bailable offences and section 388 relevant to nonbailable offences. 2
Held
[5] of Soo Shiok Liong v Pendakwa Raya
[1993] 2 CLJ 657; Section 389 of
the Criminal Procedure Code 3
Soo Shiok Liong v Pendakwa
Raya [1993] 2 CLJ 657 at page 661, paragraph c of the left column
4
Soo Shiok Liong v Pendakwa
Raya [1993] 2 CLJ 657 at page 660, paragraph a-i of the right column
