As we travel our lifetime in this universe, we pass through gorges while at the same time enjoy the breeze. I will live this life to the fullest while sharing my thoughts in this cyber world.
Docendo disco, scribendo cogito (I learn by teaching, think by writing)
Monday, June 30, 2008
Daily Contemplation (1)
Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
i think i read this from the Dhammapada. It says that a hurtful word is like a poison arrow. Once you release it and hit the target the damage is done even if you will to pull it out. The poison is already spread.
So we should refrain as much possible from saying hurtful thing esp to our loved one no matter how agitated we are.
but having said that, theory is easier to be expounded than to be practiced.
hi mav I just remember this piece of gems I found during school day...
it is christian but the message is universal...hope you like it.
Lord once when you were hurting thru and thru, cuts in your feet, your hands and your body, you look at those who did this to you - and you say, Forgive them for they know not what they do. Oh Lord, sometimes people hurt me too, Please teach me to look at them with peace and love, forgiving them as you forgive from above.
I would like to share view with you all regarding the case of DSAI quoted from renovatio blogged by stephendoss..hope you guys could think about it an give your best opinion and comment. Correct me if i'm wrong. Thanks.
"FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS, I HAVE EXTRACTED FROM THE PAST THE JUDGMENT BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA, ANWAR'S APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY. THE FOLLOWING IS A MAJORITY DECISION REACHED BY THE JUDGES SITTING IN THE FEDERAL COURT ON THE ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY.
PLEASE NOTE AND READ CAREFULLY THE VERDICT, THAT ALTHOUGH THE JUDGES HAD NO DOUBT IN THEIR MINDS THAT THE ACT OF SODOMY BY ANWAR IBRAHIM HAD TAKEN PLACE, BUT TO RELY SOLELY ON AZIZAN'S EVIDENCE WOULD BE UNSAFE FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPHOLDING THE JUDGEMENT.
SO DID THE ACT OF SODOMY TAKE PLACE ? YES ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES. BUT DUE TO A TECHNICALITY THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DISMISS THE CASE.
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 05-6-2003 (W)
ANTARA
DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. 05-7-2003 (W)
SUKMA DARMAWAN SASMITAAT MADJA … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN
CORAM:
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.
RAHMAH HUSSAIN F.C.J.
TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.
MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.
AND TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.
In this judgment, Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim will be referred to as “the first appellant” and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja will be referred to as “the second appellant”.
The first appellant was charged with an offence punishable under section 377B of the Penal Code.
The second appellant was charged with two offences. The first charge is for abetting the first appellant in the commission of the offence with which the first appellant was charged. The second charge is similar to the charge against the first appellant i.e. under section 377B of the Penal Code.
Both the appellants were tried jointly. The first appellant was convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment commencing from the expiry of the sentence he was then serving in the first trial. High Court Kuala Lumpur Criminal Trial No. 45-48-1998 (1999)2 M.L.J. 1 (H.C), (2002)2 M.L.J. 486 (C.A.) and (2002) 3 M.L.J. 193 (F.C.)). The second appellant was convicted on both charges and sentenced to six years imprisonment and two strokes for each charge with the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. For the judgment of the High Court in the present case, see (2001) 3 M.L.J. 193.
They appealed to the Court of Appeal. Their appeals were dismissed – see (2004) 1 M.L.J. 177.
They appealed to this court and this is the majority judgment of this court.
Section 87(3) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) provides that a criminal appeal to this court “may lie on a question of fact or a question of law or on a question of mixed fact and law.” The position is the same as in the case of the Court of Appeal hearing an appeal from a trial in the High Court as in this case – see section 50(3) CJA 1964.
To summarise our judgment, even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law. We may be convinced in our minds of the guilt or innocence of the appellants but our decision must only be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else."
You should read the full judgment, for if there is evidence the decision by the court would be different. However, the court did not say that "they were inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli did happen". Please check the judgment which can be downloaded from the websites.
10 comments:
i think i read this from the Dhammapada. It says that a hurtful word is like a poison arrow. Once you release it and hit the target the damage is done even if you will to pull it out. The poison is already spread.
So we should refrain as much possible from saying hurtful thing esp to our loved one no matter how agitated we are.
but having said that, theory is easier to be expounded than to be practiced.
Chou-San!
Words for both Destroy and Heal???
So, Who SODOMISES Who???
OCPD in Terengganu (check www.star.com.my 30/6/06) or Monkey Gang????
Master OogWay, need his advice lor.
well said. good work mave for posting this.
hi mav I just remember this piece of gems I found during school day...
it is christian but the message is universal...hope you like it.
Lord once when you were hurting thru and thru,
cuts in your feet, your hands and your body,
you look at those who did this to you - and you say,
Forgive them for they know not what they do.
Oh Lord, sometimes people hurt me too,
Please teach me to look at them with peace and love,
forgiving them as you forgive from above.
Agnos,
What you say is true in the practical sense. We just need to learn about life and the beauty of it.
Bond,
Hello, this article is about human philosophy of life, not Anwar.
Anyway, I did read about the OCPD thing; sad!
Agnos,
Thanks for sharing the teaching of the Lord.
Datuk Anwar,
where are you, we ken lee without you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RgL2MKfWTo
~~~ beeranyone
the right words at the right time and people will work for you for free,......
don't believe?.....
go ask your wife,....
hye guys,
I would like to share view with you all regarding the case of DSAI quoted from renovatio blogged by stephendoss..hope you guys could think about it an give your best opinion and comment. Correct me if i'm wrong. Thanks.
"FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS, I HAVE EXTRACTED FROM THE PAST THE JUDGMENT BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA, ANWAR'S APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY. THE FOLLOWING IS A MAJORITY DECISION REACHED BY THE JUDGES SITTING IN THE FEDERAL COURT ON THE ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY.
PLEASE NOTE AND READ CAREFULLY THE VERDICT, THAT ALTHOUGH THE JUDGES HAD NO DOUBT IN THEIR MINDS THAT THE ACT OF SODOMY BY ANWAR IBRAHIM HAD TAKEN PLACE, BUT TO RELY SOLELY ON AZIZAN'S EVIDENCE WOULD BE UNSAFE FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPHOLDING THE JUDGEMENT.
SO DID THE ACT OF SODOMY TAKE PLACE ? YES ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES. BUT DUE TO A TECHNICALITY THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DISMISS THE CASE.
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 05-6-2003 (W)
ANTARA
DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. 05-7-2003 (W)
SUKMA DARMAWAN SASMITAAT MADJA … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN
CORAM:
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.
RAHMAH HUSSAIN F.C.J.
TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.
MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.
AND TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.
In this judgment, Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim will be referred to as “the first appellant” and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja will be referred to as “the second appellant”.
The first appellant was charged with an offence punishable under section 377B of the Penal Code.
The second appellant was charged with two offences. The first charge is for abetting the first appellant in the commission of the offence with which the first appellant was charged. The second charge is similar to the charge against the first appellant i.e. under section 377B of the Penal Code.
Both the appellants were tried jointly. The first appellant was convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment commencing from the expiry of the sentence he was then serving in the first trial. High Court Kuala Lumpur Criminal Trial No. 45-48-1998 (1999)2 M.L.J. 1 (H.C), (2002)2 M.L.J. 486 (C.A.) and (2002) 3 M.L.J. 193 (F.C.)). The second appellant was convicted on both charges and sentenced to six years imprisonment and two strokes for each charge with the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. For the judgment of the High Court in the present case, see (2001) 3 M.L.J. 193.
They appealed to the Court of Appeal. Their appeals were dismissed – see (2004) 1 M.L.J. 177.
They appealed to this court and this is the majority judgment of this court.
Section 87(3) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) provides that a criminal appeal to this court “may lie on a question of fact or a question of law or on a question of mixed fact and law.” The position is the same as in the case of the Court of Appeal hearing an appeal from a trial in the High Court as in this case – see section 50(3) CJA 1964.
To summarise our judgment, even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law. We may be convinced in our minds of the guilt or innocence of the appellants but our decision must only be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else."
Beeranyone,
He's there and everywhere.
Jefus,
You may be right but I won't ask.
Raymond64,
You should read the full judgment, for if there is evidence the decision by the court would be different. However, the court did not say that "they were inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli did happen". Please check the judgment which can be downloaded from the websites.
Post a Comment