artificial F family

Artificial F family

Adekah Malaysia sebuah negare yg aman? Adekah Malaysia sebuah tempat yg selamat? Adekah rakyatnye begitu berbudi? Mungkin ya dan mungkin jugak tidak.

Hari rabu, 11102006, bile aku balik bilik pade pukol 1pm, aku dapat tau bilik 2.5 kene rompak. Aku pun masuk la bilik jiran aku tu (bilik aku 2.6), tgk abis brg2 bersepah. Yg jadi mangse adelah ‘ S’(budak Bangladesh), duit biasiswa die rm450 duit yg baru die buat kuar semalam dia ilang kene curik. Menurut ‘S’ dia tak kunci locker die mase pegi kelas, walaupun dalam locker die ade duit tu. lihatlah, betape berperasangka baiknye ‘S’ terhadap rakyat Malaysia.

Seorang lagi mangse adelah ‘M’, kehilangan laptop nye yg disorokkan olehnye di bawah katil. Lap top disorokkan di bawah katil kerane locker die mmg tak berkunci. Mase aku view the crime scene, hanye aku ngn ‘S’ je yg ade. Yang lain2 masih tak tau citer nih sebab diorang gi kelas. Si ‘S’ plak baru je balik from ofis kolej buat repot.

Bile aku tanye dia, ade ke officer tu amek ape2 statement dari dia pasal kes ni, dia jwb takde. Nampak sgt diorang tak series pasal kes nih. Si ‘S’ memang marah tak ingat mase cite bende ni kat aku, sambil buat muke tension dan tak puas ati kat pencuri tu. Dia ckp kat aku nk apply tukar kolej as soon as possible. Apelah budak2 ni… bulan pose pun nk buat keje jahat…

Tahun lepas bilik 2.7 ade ilang digi camera and laptop kene curik. Bilik 2.2 pun kene gak, iaitu wallet kawan aku ilang bersame duit. 2-3 hari tu wallet tu dijumpai kat bilik air level 4 tanpe duit.

Kesimpulanye: jage lah barang2 anda dgn sebaik2nye dan jgn lah mencurik brg org lain.


Sodapop big eyed monkey

Hari selase 10102006, adelah hari nuzul quran. Make hari ni takde kelas sebab cuti. Tapi kitorang setuju ngn tuan haji abu haniffa nk buat hearing dgn die pade hari ni, so aku, ezzad, doli dn khairie pun berpakaian serba black and white ala2 lawyer berjumpe ngn tuan haji abu hniffa nk buat hearing summon in chamber pasal kes guaman sivil shaik ali bin shaik ahmad v. shaik Mohamed bin shaik hasan.

Kes ni bapak punye lame, tahun 1963 ha! Rules of high court pun 1980 baru ade. Kesimpulannye hearing tu OK la bagi aku, walaupun ade gak yg kitorang merepek2 dan mereka2 sambil buat muke konfident! dah tak tau dah nk cakap pe…


Tiptopngetop spongebob

Dari dulu sampai sekarang dan akan datang asyik timbul je soal mahasiswa yg takde jati diri, lemah dan tak berdaya saing. Maksudnye mahasiswa dituduh tidak mempunyai pemikiran yg kritis atau idea bernas dan berkualiti. Mahasiswa juge dituduh kebanyakannye tidak mempunyai keyakinan untuk mengekspresikan pendapat secare effectif.

Ape yg nyate skrang byk giler mahasiswa yg terlibat dalam gejale yg tidak sihat seperti blackmetal, mat rempit, dan lebih cenderung mengamalkan gaya hidup yg penuh dgn hiburan. Hiburan pun hiburan gak, tapi jgn lupe membace buku yg bermanfaat, baru le intelektual dan genius!

Betul ke tuduhan ni? Tanye la diri korang sendiri. OK lah, jom kite usha ape yg imam hassan al banna cakap. As-Syahid Imam Hassan Al-Banna telah menggariskan 10 ciri keperibadian Muslim seperti berikut:

1. Kuat tubuh badan
2. Mantap akhlaq
3. Pemikiran yang intelek
4. Mampu berdikari
5. Aqidah yang sejahtera
6. Ibadah yang benar
7. Bermujahadah terhadap hawa nafsu
8. Menjaga waktu
9. Bermanfaat kepada manusia lain
10. Kehidupan yang bersistematik


60’s crunchy pop fuzz

Lagu best oleh sammi yusuf… untuk sape2 yg penah diberanakkan oleh seorang ibu… lirik ni tak same langsung dgn lagu yg dia nyanyi, sebab aku dah combinekan lirik dia yg versi bahase inggeris, urdu, arab dan juge turki…. Banyak betol la versi lagu nih… okey la, ckp byk tak nak la, korg bace sendiri la lirik dia yg touching tu… (pastikan anda bace sampai menangis, klu tak nangis gak, bace sekali lagi sampai nangis! Tangisan anda mestilah betul2 ikhlas, klu tak ikhlas tak aci!)

Blessed is your face
Blessed is your name
My beloved
Blessed is your smile
Which makes my soul want to fly
My beloved
All the nights
And all the times
That you cared for me
But I never realised it
And now it’s too late
Forgive me
Now I’m alone filled with so much shame
For all the years I caused you pain
If only I could sleep in your arms again
Mother I’m lost without you
You were the sun that brightened my day
Now who’s going to wipe my tears away
If only I knew what I know today
Mother I’m lost without you
To whom will I tell my sorrow
in your absence, mother?
I didn’t know your real value, my beloved mother
The Messenger (pbuh) said
“Paradise is under the mothers’ feet”
Your image is in my heart, my soul, and my dreams
When you left, my soul left
Our separation was painful
The world gave me pain
and sorrow my beloved mother
I cry like a cloud
You are like a song on my tongue
I’ve wronged you countless times
Forgive me mother
How I long to see O mother
“Your mother, Your mother, Your mother”
Is the saying of your Prophet
In my heart, in my dreams
You are always with me mother
You went and left me
O light of my eyes
O comfort of my nights
You went and left me
Who, other than you, will embrace me?
Who, other than you, will cover me?
Who, other than you, will guard over me?
Your pardon mother, forgive me


Sensasi radar oren

Baru2 ni aku telah menziarahi bilik kawan aku kat 3.5 kolej faruk blok mane ntah, make aku telah belajar satu mende best iaitu care2 nk mengikat tali leher! Hahaha! Tak sangke pade umor 23 tahun baru aku pandai mengikat tali leher dgn pantas dan mudah!

Kemudian aku baru dapat tahu bahawe tengku alias budak bilik tu ade persamaan ngn aku iaitu mase kecik2 tak suke makan kurme sebab manis sgt, dah tue2 baru la kitorang boleh terime rase buah kurme dgn senang hati…

lepas tu aku mule rase betape bestnye menjadi seorang budak sciences mcm sazlie n zul along ni bile diorang cite kat aku pasal teori2 sains dan matematik, tentang teori bahawe cahaye tu adelah sebenarnye terdiri dari zarah2 yg sgt halus, tapi teori ni still arguable. Juge tentang teori kite boleh pegi ke mase depan, black hole, dan teori bigbang yg boleh dipertikaikan tu.

Dan juge tentang teori memori otak manusie dan teori galaksi di alam yg serbe luas nih. Semuenye lebih kurang same ngn ape yg penah Sayap (budak sciences) citer kat aku mase kat matrik dulu.

Tak lupe jugak aku dpt membace sebuah buku yg dipinjam oleh sazlie dari library tentang ilmu falaq dan kalender islam. Baru la aku tau tentang sejarah dan tokoh2 kalender lunar (bulan) dan suria, dan hukum2 mengenainye yg bersifat global dan tempatan.

Tak lupe jugak aku dihidangkan oleh buku tasawuf moden kaangan HAMKA, juge dipinjam oleh sazlie dari library.

Tak lupe jugak aku dapat mkn strawberi yg dibeli oleh zul dekat mane nath. Rupe2nye umor 23 baru tau mcm mane rase buah tu, lain langsung rasenye dengan aiskrem strawberi yg aku penah beli…


Pesona bintang curang

Ni plak assainment yg penah aku buat, case review, submitted to tuan abu haniffa, lecturer civil procedure aku… original report kes dia bapak panjang giler. Nasib baik kes ni kes baru, so report kes tu ditulis secare tersusun dan lebih berinformatif formatnye…. Berbeza ngn report2 kes yg lame… (klu aku tersalah buat review pasal kes ni jgn saman aku, mende tu adelah tak disengajekan. Asainmen ini adelah semate2 untuk tujuan akademik sahaje)

Dato’ Abdullah Hishan bin Hj Mohd Hashim v Sharma kumari Shukla (No. 3) (2000) 1 AMR 334. This case was tried in High Court of Kuala Lumpur before Kamalanathan Ratnam J.

Facts of the case:

The Plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant for purportedly breached her agreement to convert to Islam and marry him. The plaintiff alleged that he loaned the defendant RM262, 350 for purchase of 165, 000 shares in Insas Sdn. Bhd. The Defendant as consideration to the loan given, purportedly agreed to convert to Islam and marry the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleged that they had mutually agreed that the defendant would retain 50% of the shares for her benefit and transfer the remaining 50% of the shares to the Plaintiff in the event he predeceases her. Besides, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had agreed to return shares to him if he failed to comply with her agreement to convert to Islam and marry him.

The Plaintiff sought a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the 83, 000 shares held by the Defendant and the return sum of RM131, 140 being purchase price of the said shares. Also claimed is the sum of RM19, 000 being the profits derived by the Defendant from the sale of 20, 000 of 83, 000 shares. Furthermore, for having been misled through fraud and deception into believing that the Defendant would convert to Islam and marry the Plaintiff, exemplary and aggravated damages also sought. The plaintiff also sought for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from dealing with the shares apart from claiming interest and cost.

The Defendant disputed the claims and sought to set-off the sum of RM131, 140 claimed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant claimed that the sum was made due to her freelance work she had done for the Plaintiff. On account of the set-off the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the return of the 83, 000 shares or its value in money.

The Defendant refused to testify on her own behalf at the hearing. She instead called other witnesses. To show that the Plaintiff’s admission of sexual intimacy with the Defendant (who is a married woman) had infringed s. 24(c), (b) and (e) of the Contracts act 1950, the Defendant attempted to call an expert in Islamic Law as a witness.

The Defendant also disputed the admissibility of photographs at the hearing although it was never objected by the Defendant during the pre-trial case management proceeding (included in the common agreed bundle of documents) despite the directions given by the Court.

Issues of the case:

1. Whether admissibility of documents deemed agreed upon during the pre-trial case management proceeding may be challenged during the trial.

2. Whether the refusal of the Defendant to testify on her own behalf may allow the Court to draw an adverse inference against her.

3. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to deal with matters pertaining to the Islamic religion.

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages.

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to aggravated damages.

Court’s findings/held:

1. At the pre-trial case management proceeding the Court directed that any party intending to challenge the inclusion of any documents in the common agreed bundle of documents (CABD) should request the other party to prove the contents. Because of the Defendant’s failure to raise any objection at the time, the photographs therefore stood as agreed and admitted of their contents. As a result, the Court cannot uphold the Defendant’s objection to the admissibility of the photographs at the trial.

2. As the main proponent to the litigation, the Defendant must herself rebut the Plaintiff’s allegations. Other evidence can corroborate her testimony. The defendant ought not to be allowed to call other witnesses first since all the material facts have been alleged against the Defendant and they are personal to and within the knowledge of the Defendant. Therefore when the Defendant in this case refused to take the witness stand without any plausible reason, an adverse inference must be drawn against her. Although the Defendant has right in law not to testify where she has no compulsion, she must be prepared to face the consequences of an adverse inference being drawn against her for failure to testify. The failure clearly went to discredit the truth of her case and to establish the truth of the Plaintiff’s case. There is no persuasive evidence in support to the Defendant’s case to justify her averments even though there is no rule of law stated that the Defendant must let herself be examined as a witness in order to establish her case.

The Defendant in this case let her husband to testify on her behalf. He has absented during any conversations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and anything he told the Court was what was told to him by the Defendant (his wife) and such evidence is pure hearsay which consequently almost all such evidence had to be rejected by the Court.

3. The learned Judge relied in Ramah binti Ta’at v Laton binti Malim Sutan (1931) where Thorne J. upheld that matters relating to Islamic religion be dealt with by a separate court that ought to be set up i.e. the Syariah Court. In this case, the Defendant’s attempt to call the expert witness in Islamic law in order to prove the Plaintiff’s admissions to sexual intimacy with her, a married woman had contravened s. 24(c), (b) and (e) of the Contract Act 1950 would not assist the Court in this case. It is besides against s. 136 of the Evidence Act 1950 as to the relevancy of the witness. The parties had agreed that as the consideration of the loan given to the Defendant, she will convert to Islam and marry the Plaintiff. The sexual experiences the Plaintiff had with the Defendant have nothing to do with the loan.

4. Relying on the fact that the Defendant and her husband had conspired to lead into Plaintiff believing that the Defendant would convert and marry the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff prayed for exemplary damages. The plaintiff granted the loan induced by the Defendant’s promise to convert and marry him and such promise contains deceits which made a stronger case for damages made out. The primary object of an award is to compensate the Plaintiff for harm done to him and the secondary object is to punish the Defendant for his conduct in inflicting the harm. The second object is achieved by awarding exemplary or punitive damages in addition to the normal compensatory damages whereby in the Defendant’s conduct contains malice, fraud, cruelty or the like.

However Lord Devlin in House of Lords in Rookes v Barnad (1964) reviewed the principle of awarding exemplary damages whereby it is no longer permissible to award exemplary damages against the Defendant however outrageous his conduct except a few exceptional cases. There are 3 categories of ‘exceptional cases’ meant in the case i.e. (1) Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional conduct by Government servants, (2) Conduct calculated to result in profit, and (3) Express authorization by statute. The Court found that the only category that can apply in this case is the second.

The meaning of the “profit” can be extended as the desires of the Defendant to be called ‘Datin’ (according to PW5, Abdullah Hussien, the Plaintiff’s limosine driver) and to gain as much benefits from that title and the Plaintiff. The Court is not to make excessive awards since the object of such award is to punish. However the court in making this award ought to consider the conduct of the parties particularly the Defendant. The Defendant has made several wild and baseless accusations that degraded the Plaintiff reputation as a businessman. Worse, the Plaintiff’s family also threatened in many ways such as by phone call to harm the family members if he did not drop the suit.

The Court also considered the conduct of the Plaintiff and rejected the Plaintiff’s own quantification and only awarded the damages amounting to RM500, 000.

5. For Court to award the aggravated damages, the Plaintiff must show that the conduct of the Defendant was so obnoxious. The Plaintiff in this case was subjected to humiliation when the Defendant made various baseless, false and fabricated allegations against him. By all of these the Defendant put the Plaintiff through indignity. These were to harm the Plaintiff (who was bestowed with the title of Datukship) with the maximum publicity of both local and foreign media. The Court considering the Plaintiff was subjected to prolonged and lengthy cross-examination without let up by experienced counsel, and that the Defendant could not establish her case awarded the Plaintiff the sum of RM500, 000 as aggravated damages.

Other rulings by the Court:

1. The Plaintiff asked the Court to exercise its discretion to award interest from such period as the Court thinks fit and just. The Court exercising its discretion awarded the Plaintiff an interest at 6% per annum from July 1, 1996 to the date of the judgment on the claim by the Plaintiff for the sum of RM131, 140 being the cost of 83, 000 units of Insas shares registered in the name of the Defendant. The Court also awarded an interest at 6% per annum from February 26, 1997 to date of judgment for the claim of RM19, 000 being the profit derived by the Defendant by selling 20, 000 of the 83, 000 Insas shares retained by her on February 25 and on February 26, 1997.

2. The Plaintiff also prayed for two sets of costs. The Court having regard to the nature and complexity of the case judged that the Plaintiff entitled to two sets of costs.

3. During the trial the Defendant contended that the value of the 83, 000 shares amounting to RM131, 140 held by her was the actual sum due to her from the Plaintiff for the free lance work she had done. The Court asked the Defendant’s solicitor to show how the Defendant had calculated the working hours to arrive the amount of 131, 140 as amount due to her. The counsel failed to tender any evidence to show the calculation. Therefore the Court considered that the Defendant had lacked of evidence and hence fail to establish her case.

4. The counsel for the Defendant attempted to call a witness (who described himself as a private investigator) to testify that he was retained by the Plaintiff to keep surveillance on the Defendant. The counsel for the Plaintiff objected that the Plaintiff never engaged and knowing him. The witness fail to tender anything upon asked by the Court any written instruction from the Plaintiff to act or any written report by him to the Plaintiff. The counsel for the Defendant also failed to warn the witness that he might be breaching his rules of ethics by testifying on behalf of the person on whom he was to maintain surveillance, and against the party that had appointed him (assuming the Plaintiff had actually appointed the said witness). The Court disallowed the witness from being called because it was unfair to the Plaintiff who has not responded in his evidence about the engagement of the witness.

Chou! Chin! Chou!