The issue of the ‘machete’

In the case of the police shooting of the minor, most people are upset because they think the police are too trigger happy.

While this might be true, I think there are other issues involved here too. An  important point is to determine whether there was any ‘parang’ in the car when the child was shot dead. If there is no parang when the 2 kids drove the car to the mamak stall, and later , after the shooting , there was one found in the car, someone must have planted the parang. If this is the case, then there is an attempt to cover up.

In the States, a president was impeached in the 70s because of his attempt to cover up, or rather his failure to stop the cover-up,  a break-in– The watergate.

If there is an attempt to cover up, then a very grave wrong would  have been done on purpose. If this is so, there must be a full investigation to find out how high the cover up has gone..If any highers-up are involved, they must face the law too.

So it is very important for  the investigators to find out where the parang is from. It si also important to have independent investigators.

Looking at the face of the kids, I really doubt that they were ‘robbers’ or criminals, even though they had done a wrong in driving a car without a license

recommended reading:

What has Malaysian society become?


23 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Richard Loh
    May 06, 2010 @ 13:37:17

    The question of the parang, how does the police know there is a parang in the car, unless the occupants are waving them while driving. The police shoot because there is a After they shot and killed the driver only then they discover there is a parang if there is any. They justified the shooting because of the parang?

    I am very very puzzled, Dr. Hsu, may be you can write better on the parang.


  2. klm
    May 06, 2010 @ 14:12:01

    I have another question. Is this the same parang used in other cases as well? Maybe interesting to this out.


  3. Patrick SA Chai
    May 06, 2010 @ 14:41:46

    In my opinion unless the boys charge at the police with parang then it justify the shooting.
    The government must consider fitting camera & computer on police patrol car rather than paying jumping frogs.
    What the people really want is good education, healthcare and security and if dutifully provided I dont see any reason why the people would vote them out.


  4. Dr Hsu
    May 06, 2010 @ 15:03:42

    Richard Loh
    everyone is confused about this case…. 😦


  5. mccann105
    May 06, 2010 @ 15:23:57

    the parang was conveniently forgotten in the interview? this is not the 1st case of people been fixed up . each time i see these police traffic road blocks..there more cari makan then just crime prevention!


  6. CYC
    May 06, 2010 @ 17:26:36

    Malaysia is a country practicing collaborative or joint responsibility. Its either the whole team (be it PDRM or cabinet ) is cleared of the charges/accusations (as usual) or they be kicked/voted out. The choice lies in our hand, but are we ready to exercise it jointly as they did?

    You will never see a single individual taking responsibility over whatever faults as this does not fit into our culture.

    No amount of solid evidence will win the case for the victim as the power to initiate the prosecution rest in the hand of like minded AG’s chamber who also practice joint responsibility. Otherwise, the presiding judge could over rule whatever evidence one may submit before him. So, they will be winner under whatever circumstances.

    Just imagine, AG pretend not to see the CSL’s erected c**k to establish a prima facie case him when the whole could see it clearly. U called it selective prosecution or selective profiling, up to u as long he has made up his mind there is no further action needed from his chamber.

    What do expect from this govt if they don’t fire the IGP? Reform ? That is not an option but a wishful thinking. Perhaps only if a son of some UMNO/MCA/GElakan’s big shot ended up tragically as Amirul will render them to sack him.


  7. Richard Loh
    May 06, 2010 @ 20:31:04

    Sorry Dr. Hsu, off topic.

    Umno is constantly raising the May 13 threat and I had make a poll for the people opinion.

    Poll: What Is Your Opinion Of Umno’s Constant Threat Of Another May 13?”


  8. klm
    May 06, 2010 @ 21:05:16

    Richard Loh. I just read the statement and I am waiting for Najib and KTK and CSL et all to comment. This would make wonderful input to the elections. It goes to show how blood thirsty these people are.


  9. Amin
    May 06, 2010 @ 22:17:36


    For those of us who understand the provisions of the law regarding the right of self-defence to the extent of causing death under the Penal Code (sec. 100, if I am no mistaken), the presence or absence of the machete in the car is not important in this particular case.

    In this case, were the threats to the Policemen so serious that this young decd boy was about to cause imminent death to them that they could inflict death to him as self defence? That is the crux of the matter. If the answer is NO, then this boy’s death is not justified under the law. He (decd) may be wrong in every other sense, he may be apprehended and dealt with under whatever legal provisions, but inflicting death is not the legal and lawful option.

    Hence, the actions of the policemen under such a circumstance cannot be sustained under the law, and thus they are at least culpable under the offence of manslaugter under sec. 304 of the Penal Code, if not murder under sec 302.


  10. sosong
    May 06, 2010 @ 22:45:05

    Even with a parang or 2 in the car does not justify this senseless shooting n killing!!


  11. disgusted
    May 06, 2010 @ 23:14:46

    Good puzzle, how does the police know there is a parang? Good lead. So when the police chase the car, they saw the parang “inside” the car boot?

    Or after the shooting, they saw the parang in the car?

    Wow, we got “X-men” in the police force, I mean a force with X-ray eyes.

    This country is really screwed up from top to bottom. Yes, U Must Not Overshoot.


  12. stevent
    May 07, 2010 @ 00:22:30

    Well they can see the parang but not the minor driving the car. Put that aside, if anyone reads the star paper today (Thursday), you would notice that the Gov is now waging a war against teenagers. Lets take a look at a few headliners.

    1)Minor at fault in shooting incident, says expert (by Dr Teoh, Head of the School of Natural Health and Sciences in Sunway University College)

    2)Boys just want to have fun – Survey shows that most teenagers are the type to ‘hit and run’

    3)State’s nightlife policy questioned – too may entertainment outlets approved last year, says rep (You think is coincidence that this is brought up?)

    Let the spin begins.


  13. Dr Hsu
    May 07, 2010 @ 09:20:31

    What I am trying to say is not about the parang, but rather was there an attempt to ‘plant’ the parang and thus cover up the case? if there is such attempt, it is very wrong, and it means that anyone could run foul of the law, not because they commit any crime, but because someone plants something to implicate them.

    that will be the end of what little remaining rights that we have now.


  14. Lai Kee Kong
    May 07, 2010 @ 09:51:37

    The parang has now dissapeared from the police vocabulary. There is no mention of it apart from initial press statement. If there is a parang, then police would have a reason to call them dangerous criminals. But now, it has been established that the boys are just normal michievous boys, the parang does not fit the profile any longer. The police is now in a quandary. Do they steadfastly insist on the existence of the parang or just pretend it no longer exist and hopes everyone forgets about? Lincoln once said, you can fool some of people all the time and all the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.


  15. CYC
    May 07, 2010 @ 10:51:51

    It will be another miscarriage of justice. KTK knowingly ignore the truth while CSL busy covering up his bottom. And Dr Hsu cracking his head on how to hasten Gelakan out of BN but in vain.


  16. klm
    May 07, 2010 @ 11:20:09

    Let me give a name to this tactic. It is called fudge and fear or F&F. Fudge the evidence to show victims in bad light and use power to sow fear on the victims and other.


  17. cilipadi
    May 07, 2010 @ 11:47:11

    The “Parang” wasn’t there.
    Mocked up story by Police.

    No “Parang” picture shown, why?
    If there, already shown in media, if not planted.

    If shown and planted,
    the case more complicated, like Watergate.
    Then, police – murderer & ‘cover-up’.

    Police makan cili, ‘cover-up’ rasa pedas


  18. msan
    May 07, 2010 @ 11:51:04

    Even if there were 10 parang in the car there is no justification in shooting to kill. The parang story is to try to gain sympathy and understanding from the public on the dangers faced by the police in discharging their duties.

    This story line has been used so often that the public does not believe them any more.

    The policemen said that they believe the boys were criminals and that the driver reversed the car to try to harm them. Were the policemen still in their patrol car when the boy supposedly reverse the car? If they were, was there any imminent mortal danger to them, so much so, that they had no choice but to shoot to kill? The witness’s account of what happened seemed more believable.

    Imagine, what if there was no witness, as had happened on many occasions…………….?


  19. Cadraver
    May 07, 2010 @ 14:10:12

    I beg to differ, Dr. Hsu. Even if there was a parang, or machete in the trunk of the car, did that warrant a shooting?

    It might have been a different story altogether if the victim brandished the weapon against the authorities. But in this case, the alleged ‘weapon’ was in the trunk (or backseat, details are sketchy at this point) of the car.

    Even so, would that warrant the police to open fire? If so, then this would apply as well to individuals who use parangs in their line of work, such as plantation workers, who may take their parangs to work and so forth.

    If you say that the police were right to open fire based on the victim based on the existence of the parang, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate if they discovered the weapon beforehand?

    Seems like an issue of ‘shoot first, ask later,’ which in this case, appears to be similar to the US military’s illegal invasion of Iraq, based on so-called evidence that there were chemical or nuclear weapons in Saddam Hussein’s backset/trunk/etc.


  20. bujang
    May 07, 2010 @ 14:47:30

    Dear Sir:

    Putting the death of the boy aside – there is no way to resurect though i am sad to hear the lost of life, any life.
    The big issue is how and why parents allow the boy to go out at that time and knowing wthout any driving license and also that is the bed time. It seems knowadays, chidren are too free and parents are unable to control them not the life sixties time. Wake up parents. Just see at home we have tv sets, karaoke, note books – these are spoilts or chidlren if not under tap.


  21. Dr Hsu
    May 07, 2010 @ 15:44:46

    you have misunderstood my post.

    i did not say police was right to shoot . I was just trying to highlight another issue, that of planting evidence to implicate an innocent person. Shooting of course is another issue which has been in the limelight and so mcuh evidence has been given.

    You all are right to say that even if there is a parang, polcie should not shoot. That is one point.

    I am trying to portray another point, that is if there is no parang int he car when the kids left home and then suddenly after the shooting, there was a parang, then someone must have planted it to make the kids look bad.. The planting of evidence is very very wrong. Imagine if some law enforecement plants some drugs in an innocent person’s pocket and accuse him of being drug trafficker, that innocent person can be hanged… So I am just saying that there is another issue in this case which needs to be thoroghly investigated.. If there is planting of evidence, how high did the cover up go to? Whoever trying to plant and cover up must be hauled up ….

    I actually agree with all of you that even if the boy did have a knife or something, police should not shoot… But I doubt the boys were bad looking at their photos… They are just normal kids trying to mimic adult driving around town..


  22. disgusted
    May 07, 2010 @ 22:27:06

    Dr, your questioning the “planting” theory reminded me of an allegation pertaining to checking houses for andes mosquitoes.

    Hear this, the authority men went to a house allegedly with small plastic bags containing alleged mosquitoes and then planted them inside especially flowerpot plates. Then summoned the householder and guess what. Allegations: money passing over.

    Alleged good business, one mosquito, how much fine? So the householder prefer to pay less. You scratch my back, I scratch yours, not bad, eh?

    So “planting” is a good strategem.


  23. Meng
    May 07, 2010 @ 23:08:08

    A simple case of injustice where no offering of violence towards the police nor were they in danger at any point of time. Even if they find 100 parangs in the car, the police were never in any danger.

    Even if the boy was driving with a parang in his hand, there was no danger or violence offered too.

    Trigger happy???


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: