Say (what you need to say)* - John Mayer

Many people like to give their views. They feel a need to say something about anything. Yes, i am guilty of that - tt's why i have blogs!!!!

But i feel that some people are misusing their liberty and their basic human right to express their views. This is highlighted recently in the issue of the fatal shooting of a 15 year-old boy by the police.

The police are have given their account of the story but criticise the victim's fren when he gave his. That's not fair - and it's not right either. When the victim's fren gave his account, the police alleged that it was unethical of his lawyers to do so!!! But when the Bar Council president gave a statement that it was not unethical, the reporting did not get the same prominence as when the police claimed otherwise. Now who's view is more reliable when it comes to legal ethics?

Others are talking about it and making statements in the press when they are not in any position to do so (see previous post)!!!! I would give my views on legal matters and human rights issues but if the press comes to me to ask my views about medical matters or fashion or biology, i will refrain from doing so.

We can - and some say should - say what we feel is needed to be said. But we should do so responsibly - something which i hope i've been doing.

Another journalist gave his views today - he made sweeping statements, he highlighted allegedly 'important' 'facts' which the public has ignored and he gave his conclusion that the policemen in question are innocent of wrongdoing. You can read his article here. Again, i've responded to it and again, i doubt it'll be printed - so here it is:-

Dear sir/madam,

I refer to the "Why Not?" column of your journalist, Mr Wong Sai Wan in his article, "In the line of fire" which is reported here - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/5/7/focus/6211913&sec=focus

In his article, he alleged that "everyone pointed the finger at the four policemen, concluding instantly that they were guilty". I have to disagree with such a sweeping statement. I can easily name a few people who did not come to such a conclusion.

Further, he accused the public of ignoring the following facts:-

1. that there was a lengthy car chase;
2. that the boy kept on driving despite the car being fired at;
3. that the two patrol cars had their sirens blaring and lights flashing, and yet the boy refused to stop.

I would like to respectfully disagree with Mr Wong on that account too. But in any event, these facts does not change what a lot of people want - to know what really took place and to know if the policemen acted in accordance with law when they open fire at the car. Those facts referred to by Mr Wong does not support an act of self-defence by the policemen.

Finally, while Mr Wong is 'saddened' that allegedly everyone concluded the policemen were guilty, he himself had concluded that the policemen were not! How can he make suce a conclusion when the conclusion of the investigation has not been made known yet?

Making conclusions on the matter now is not going to help - whether you think the policemen are guilty or otherwise. Let the legal proceedings take its natural course.

Mun Onn

*His highest charting single to date, it was also used in a Hallmark commercial.