By: Natalie Shobana Ambrose
theSun, Malaysia (pg 14)
January 12th, 2012
Flip- flops are the new protest symbol in Indonesia. In response to a guilty verdict handed to a 15-year-old for stealing a pair of $3 sandals from a police officer, over 1,000 used flip-flops have been dropped off at a police station in an initiative by the National Commission on Child Protection.
Having confessed after a said beating the teenager faced a five-year jail sentence but no evidence was provided in court. He was declared guilty and released without punishment but left with a possible criminal record.
The anger is not about the so-called crime but that the case of such triviality with little evidence went to court while more serious cases are treated lightly. In a region where corruption levels are high, the trend of excessive sentencing for smaller crimes is becoming more and more indefensible and such judgments are less and less accepted by people.
In Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, Jean Valjean was imprisoned for stealing bread for his starving sister a story comparable to Gregory Taylor an American, who received a 25-year life sentence for trying to break into a church kitchen because he was hungry.
Similar cases have gone through our courts like that of a 22-year-old hawker who was jailed a month for stealing two packets of coffee worth RM31. By no means should he not be penalised, committing a crime warrants legal retribution, however, the scales seems tipped when juxtaposed against much larger corruption charges like that of a corruption case involving a former chief minister who bought a bungalow worth millions. His sentence? A slap on the wrist with a 12-month jail sentence.
Corruption is just a fancy word for theft. Therefore if we were to use simple maths to come up with a jail sentence, the question would sound something like … "If a hawker spends one month in jail for stealing RM35, how many years will a politician spend in jail for stealing RM5 million?"
It's one thing to steal but the heartache is that the money cannot be recovered. It's as if on a shopping spree, I ended up buying a diamond bracelet for RM24 million and I tried to sell it afterwards. No jeweller worth his salt would pay me the same amount for it.
The same goes when trying to return a luxury condominium bought with borrowed money. Some of the funds might be returned but not all of it. A great deal is lost. Yet in these cases, the law does not seem to be harsh enough.
Year after year, entrusted power is abused by politicians and year after year, the attorney-general scrapes the tip of the iceberg revealing such corrupt practices.
Yet it seems only the small fish are caught or made an example of while the masterminds go free with padded pockets, real estate in different latitudes and thick trust funds that accord luxury living for their children.
The suggestion here is proportionality weighted on responsibility – balancing the scales of sentencing. The analogy of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is often used – is the sentence too heavy, too light or just right (Thomas, T).
Perhaps another question is whether a case should be tried like that which has caused a flip-flop revolution in Indonesia. Not only is time wasted but resources are unnecessarily exhausted, something that is less and less forgivable in today's economic and political climate.
This week we tout the independence of our judiciary. Set against the backdrop of pending verdicts of corruption cases, the judiciary is presented with repeated opportunities to prove itself to be impartial upholding the principle of proportionality.
In 1957, Tunku Abdul Rahman spoke of the ideal Malaysia "founded upon the principles of liberty and justice", perhaps now is the time to give back the blindfold to justice so that the scales might be balanced and power restored accordingly.
Natalie hopes that we can move on as a mature democracy, society and people.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
