‘WHO AND WHAT CREATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IN MALAYSIA?’ – PART I:
… ARE THERE DIRECT LINKS BETWEEN THE LEGAL PROFESSION, THE MEDIA AND THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY THAT CAUSE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES TO BE CREATED AND ‘ENCOURAGED’ TO HAPPEN – BECAUSE THERE’S A LOT OF MONEY TO BE MADE FROM OTHER PEOPLE’S MISERIES AND SUFFERINGS?
By Mansor Puteh
WHO STANDS TO BENEFIT FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT HAPPEN IN THE COUNTRY?
IT’S OBVIOUS THAT THERE ARE SOME WHO SUFFER, BUT THERE ARE ALSO MANY WHO CAN ACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM THEM.
DON’T THEY NOT KNOW HOW TO STOP NEW AND ALMOST SIMILAR TYPES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES FROM BEING REPEATED?
And all this happens with those in the two houses of parliament debating on other issues while new criminal case creating another round of anxieties for the bereaved and those who can benefit from them?
It has the same plot with similar allegations and counter allegations and press conferences involving the same lawyers and parliamentarians cum lawyers and other well-meaning NGO personalities so much so that it becomes another episode in a long soap opera serial that has the same plot with some calling for the setting up of a royal commission, presenting of the white paper in parliament and an inquest, etc.
But they can never resurrect those who have died while the parties concerned dilly-dally on how to go about to reveal the truth behind the crimes that had happened.
They are not able to use the old cases to find ways to avoid new ones from being repeated in almost the same manner. They just go with the flow because this is their limitation.
Yes, there are some direct links between criminal activities and the relevant parties.
And the public are also not totally blameless in this matter; they had voted in the wrong people to parliament and are complicit to most of the crimes that have happened for their being too lackadaisical about it, thinking what is happening is nothing but a show involving the others until the same tragedy strikes them.
This can also allow us to wonder if the lawyers, law enforcement officers and politicians are properly trained. Do they have the right background to be whom they want to be?
How often senior police officers in other countries appear on television and the papers than their counterparts in Malaysia?
Do the newspaper editors also know how to manufacture news without being involved in them directly and indirectly? Are they saying to themselves, ‘Stop it, I like it?!’
The links are so direct and clear, but the psychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists and politicians and even those in Bukit Aman can’t see them.
Now they can. And what are they going to do about it?
Chances are they won’t know how to go about solving criminal activities in the country in the long-term and in the structural manner.
They only know how to jump on them with the police trying to ‘benefit’ from them to prove how caring they are at trying ensuring that the country is in peace, while the lawyers pretend to be sympathetic and the media giving a splash hoping to reap profits for their companies.
And don’t expect these sorts of issues to be raised, discussed and even debated by them. Even the experts in Bukit Aman and the police academies and other anti-crime bodies and associations and NGOs can’t conjecture anywhere near this line of argument.
But isn’t there veracity in what I’m alleging here?
That crimes are created; they just do not happen because some people in our society just like to do it.
Most of them who had committed all sorts of crimes had to do it because they were influenced by elements that interact with each other which I have mentioned above.
The advertising industry churns a lot of rubbish and propaganda everyday trying to dissuade the people not to toe the line; they often pester them to go beyond their limits. And they are not there just to sell products.
And the well-meaning lawyers and other politicians are not just there to soothe the tortured souls and try to get justice for the bereaved.
Alas what good is there to the dead who are gone? And what good can the relatives and close friends they had left behind get from their painful experiences and being in the glare of publicity that they could get for a while before their lives return to normal being unknowns they were before the personal tragedy happened to them?
In the end who stands to gain the most from crimes that had been committed?
Have the lawyers, parliamentarians cum lawyers and other activists and the newspaper editors no shame in trying to ‘benefit’ from the dead and juveniles and the others again and again?
Lawyers make a lot of money from crimes; so they are very sympathetic to those who are in dire straits. They cry all the way to the bank, as some others like to say.
Newspapers sell and their companies also make money if there are lots of them – so much so one can start to ask now if they are truly trying to sympathize with the bereaved or to benefit from their miseries.
And the advertising industry creates a lot of confusion and introduces new social and cultural and even pseudo-religious values to the young. So no wonder most crimes in the country involve the young.
So crimes may be bad for those who suffer from them, but not so to those who can benefit from them.
Who says crime does not pay then? They do. They are good for the lawyers, some parliamentarians cum lawyers and newspapers.
And we have a so-called minister in the prime minister’s department but what is his function other than to be nothing more than the communications manager. He does not know how crimes are created and how to avoid them from being repeated in almost similar fashion.
With the fast expanding middle class and people with confused preferences and needs or values, we can expect to get crimes which are also new to the country from which the relevant parties can indeed benefit from.
Their predecessors had in an earlier time of few decades ago could only deal with petty crimes involving people stealing chicken eggs or peeping on women bathing at the public wells.
There was not much crime committed then, so the need for lawyers was also not pressing. Now there are many lawyers who would be unemployed so crimes have to be created to serve their interests.
So, let’s pretend to be sympathetic while they can benefit from it.
Those lawyers are no better and no worse than the same lawyers and the same parliamentarians cum lawyers and newspaper editors.
Such modern-day crimes are definitely not good for the police as each crime that happens require different methods to stop; some of which can cause some members in the force to suffer from them having tried to do their job as the criminals often present new scenarios without realizing it.
Criminals can be careless, but the police officers cannot. That’s what the lawyers and media people seem to think.
Criminals are not pounded upon by the media and public, but the police are often the target of scorn if their method of defense and often to apprehend the criminals and potentially dangerous individuals went awry.
In the meantime, let some people pretend to show concern to the bereaved while they reap in the profits.
There is no insinuation of any sort here; what I am writing is evidently clear for everybody to see. But in Malaysia there are not many who could see the whole matter this way or else some of them would have written about it.
Don’t they know how to use whatever ‘expertise’ and legal brains and special positions as parliamentarians to influence the introduction of new laws so that such incidents do not happen in the future?
There are some lawyers who seem to be fired up if there are crimes which should not have happened in the first place but which did anyway.
These are unnecessary crimes which create unnecessary controversies and unnecessary newspaper reports.
So no wonder lawyers, some parliamentarians cum lawyers and the newspapers thrive when there is crime – which ironically translates to them having a lot of things to do and much to gain from.
And the lawyers are mostly the Indian and Punjabi ones.
I don’t blame the police for having tried to do their level best to protect the public from harm. But they are often pushed to the defensive and unnecessary charged because some of the members of the public do not know how to keep themselves from harm because they are happy to break the laws.
In the end those who have to stand in the line of fire from all sides, are the enforcement officers who do not know what they are up against, working in environments which are hostile and for a public who are ungrateful.
Yet, when there are incidents of crime, the first thing the public do is to call the police. Why didn’t they call the lawyers and parliamentarians cum lawyers?
By Mansor Puteh
WHO STANDS TO BENEFIT FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT HAPPEN IN THE COUNTRY?
IT’S OBVIOUS THAT THERE ARE SOME WHO SUFFER, BUT THERE ARE ALSO MANY WHO CAN ACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM THEM.
DON’T THEY NOT KNOW HOW TO STOP NEW AND ALMOST SIMILAR TYPES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES FROM BEING REPEATED?
And all this happens with those in the two houses of parliament debating on other issues while new criminal case creating another round of anxieties for the bereaved and those who can benefit from them?
It has the same plot with similar allegations and counter allegations and press conferences involving the same lawyers and parliamentarians cum lawyers and other well-meaning NGO personalities so much so that it becomes another episode in a long soap opera serial that has the same plot with some calling for the setting up of a royal commission, presenting of the white paper in parliament and an inquest, etc.
But they can never resurrect those who have died while the parties concerned dilly-dally on how to go about to reveal the truth behind the crimes that had happened.
They are not able to use the old cases to find ways to avoid new ones from being repeated in almost the same manner. They just go with the flow because this is their limitation.
Yes, there are some direct links between criminal activities and the relevant parties.
And the public are also not totally blameless in this matter; they had voted in the wrong people to parliament and are complicit to most of the crimes that have happened for their being too lackadaisical about it, thinking what is happening is nothing but a show involving the others until the same tragedy strikes them.
This can also allow us to wonder if the lawyers, law enforcement officers and politicians are properly trained. Do they have the right background to be whom they want to be?
How often senior police officers in other countries appear on television and the papers than their counterparts in Malaysia?
Do the newspaper editors also know how to manufacture news without being involved in them directly and indirectly? Are they saying to themselves, ‘Stop it, I like it?!’
The links are so direct and clear, but the psychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists and politicians and even those in Bukit Aman can’t see them.
Now they can. And what are they going to do about it?
Chances are they won’t know how to go about solving criminal activities in the country in the long-term and in the structural manner.
They only know how to jump on them with the police trying to ‘benefit’ from them to prove how caring they are at trying ensuring that the country is in peace, while the lawyers pretend to be sympathetic and the media giving a splash hoping to reap profits for their companies.
And don’t expect these sorts of issues to be raised, discussed and even debated by them. Even the experts in Bukit Aman and the police academies and other anti-crime bodies and associations and NGOs can’t conjecture anywhere near this line of argument.
But isn’t there veracity in what I’m alleging here?
That crimes are created; they just do not happen because some people in our society just like to do it.
Most of them who had committed all sorts of crimes had to do it because they were influenced by elements that interact with each other which I have mentioned above.
The advertising industry churns a lot of rubbish and propaganda everyday trying to dissuade the people not to toe the line; they often pester them to go beyond their limits. And they are not there just to sell products.
And the well-meaning lawyers and other politicians are not just there to soothe the tortured souls and try to get justice for the bereaved.
Alas what good is there to the dead who are gone? And what good can the relatives and close friends they had left behind get from their painful experiences and being in the glare of publicity that they could get for a while before their lives return to normal being unknowns they were before the personal tragedy happened to them?
In the end who stands to gain the most from crimes that had been committed?
Have the lawyers, parliamentarians cum lawyers and other activists and the newspaper editors no shame in trying to ‘benefit’ from the dead and juveniles and the others again and again?
Lawyers make a lot of money from crimes; so they are very sympathetic to those who are in dire straits. They cry all the way to the bank, as some others like to say.
Newspapers sell and their companies also make money if there are lots of them – so much so one can start to ask now if they are truly trying to sympathize with the bereaved or to benefit from their miseries.
And the advertising industry creates a lot of confusion and introduces new social and cultural and even pseudo-religious values to the young. So no wonder most crimes in the country involve the young.
So crimes may be bad for those who suffer from them, but not so to those who can benefit from them.
Who says crime does not pay then? They do. They are good for the lawyers, some parliamentarians cum lawyers and newspapers.
And we have a so-called minister in the prime minister’s department but what is his function other than to be nothing more than the communications manager. He does not know how crimes are created and how to avoid them from being repeated in almost similar fashion.
With the fast expanding middle class and people with confused preferences and needs or values, we can expect to get crimes which are also new to the country from which the relevant parties can indeed benefit from.
Their predecessors had in an earlier time of few decades ago could only deal with petty crimes involving people stealing chicken eggs or peeping on women bathing at the public wells.
There was not much crime committed then, so the need for lawyers was also not pressing. Now there are many lawyers who would be unemployed so crimes have to be created to serve their interests.
So, let’s pretend to be sympathetic while they can benefit from it.
Those lawyers are no better and no worse than the same lawyers and the same parliamentarians cum lawyers and newspaper editors.
Such modern-day crimes are definitely not good for the police as each crime that happens require different methods to stop; some of which can cause some members in the force to suffer from them having tried to do their job as the criminals often present new scenarios without realizing it.
Criminals can be careless, but the police officers cannot. That’s what the lawyers and media people seem to think.
Criminals are not pounded upon by the media and public, but the police are often the target of scorn if their method of defense and often to apprehend the criminals and potentially dangerous individuals went awry.
In the meantime, let some people pretend to show concern to the bereaved while they reap in the profits.
There is no insinuation of any sort here; what I am writing is evidently clear for everybody to see. But in Malaysia there are not many who could see the whole matter this way or else some of them would have written about it.
Don’t they know how to use whatever ‘expertise’ and legal brains and special positions as parliamentarians to influence the introduction of new laws so that such incidents do not happen in the future?
There are some lawyers who seem to be fired up if there are crimes which should not have happened in the first place but which did anyway.
These are unnecessary crimes which create unnecessary controversies and unnecessary newspaper reports.
So no wonder lawyers, some parliamentarians cum lawyers and the newspapers thrive when there is crime – which ironically translates to them having a lot of things to do and much to gain from.
And the lawyers are mostly the Indian and Punjabi ones.
I don’t blame the police for having tried to do their level best to protect the public from harm. But they are often pushed to the defensive and unnecessary charged because some of the members of the public do not know how to keep themselves from harm because they are happy to break the laws.
In the end those who have to stand in the line of fire from all sides, are the enforcement officers who do not know what they are up against, working in environments which are hostile and for a public who are ungrateful.
Yet, when there are incidents of crime, the first thing the public do is to call the police. Why didn’t they call the lawyers and parliamentarians cum lawyers?
Comments