Cruel & Unfair Justice

Imagine a man driving his car along a highway on an early Sunday morning. For some unknown reasons, whether because the car becomes faulty somehow or due to the road conditions, he suddenly loses control of his car, and then hitting a runner running at the roadside. She dies on the spot from the impact. Obviously, the man is responsible for the death of the woman although in this case the whole thing is accidental in nature. But how should he be punished?

Now consider an alternative scenario. Still back to the same basic facts above, except that the man is driving with an expired driving licence. His competency in handling the vehicle is still basically the same as in the first scenario, and whether he is driving with a valid or expired driving licence does not change the fact that he somehow loses control of the vehicle, leading to the death of the woman. The incident is still accidental in nature, although in this second scenario, he is driving with an expired licence. I think we can all agree that he deserves the punishment, as provided by the law, for "driving without a valid driving licence", or rather having a licence that has expired. But that is a separate matter and can well be considered in isolation from the fact that a woman lost her life because she was hit by the vehicle. Apart from the punishment for "driving without a valid licence", would you punish the man any differently for the part about the woman losing her life due to the impact of the car in the first scenario above?

Now imagine yet another possible scenario. Again, the same basic facts as in the first scenario above, but this time the man is driving while under the influence of alcohol. It is not known the level of intoxication, and it is unclear whether or not he would have been able to control his car any better if he were sober. I suppose this last issue depends on how drunk is the man. I'm not an alcohol drinker, so I'm not well versed in this, but I happen to know some people can drink gallons of alcohol and still won't loose their "driving skills" too much; whereas some people drink very little alcohol, and they would be knocked out for days. But anyway, in this third scenario, I think we can all agree that the man deserves the punishment, as provided by the law, for drunk driving. But bear in mind that as we have seen in the first scenario above, even a sober driver could not control the vehicle and ended up hitting the woman. So it does seem like the alcohol does not make any difference on the outcome of the incident.

The above three scenarios are very similar to one another, yet very different when the "expired driving licence" and "drunk driving" are included in the equation. What I know is that if it can be proven that the driver did not drive recklessly, and the incident was entirely accidental in nature, he would normally not be blamed. But of course he is still answerable for "driving without a valid licence" and "drunk driving". In other words, the punishment that the man deserves will therefore depend on the exact details of the case, because a slight change in those details will result in different responsibility.

Well, such was the case with a woman named Sue Lynn, an avid runner who was hit by a car during her morning jog on 29 January 2025. The man behind the steering wheel was found to be drunk. According to this news article, he was initially investigated under Section 44(1) of the Road Transport Act for drunken driving causing death. However, he was later charged under Section 45A, which covers drunk driving without causing harm or death. Immediately we ask ourselves, "Why?". The family is now urging the authorities to reinstate a more serious charge against the driver.

A family member of the victim contacted me privately recently and sought my support to spread the family's call for a "higher" charge against the driver. Being a parent myself, my heart goes out to the family. I can just imagine the pain of losing a loved one. If it had happened to me, I would be devastated.

But I'm rather reluctant to support in this case, because I have insufficient information about the case. I don't know, for example, if it was the "drunk driving" element that was the real cause of the accident. Apparently, the police, in the course of its investigation, had decided that it wasn't, although no explanation was given in the news article. I reckon there must be an explanation why the charge was framed under Section 45A instead of 44(1). Until I discover that explanation, I can't decide whether to support or not the call for the man to be charged under Section 44(1).

I do support, however, for justice to be served, bearing in mind that both the victim and the driver deserve justice. No amount of punishment to the driver will bring Sue Lynn back, of course, and it is in that sense that the romantic idea of "justice" is sometimes just so cruel and unfair! I'm of the view that if the driver is only guilty under the heading of "drunk driving" and not under the "accident" element, then he should only be punished for "drunk driving". That is to say, he should be given only what he deserves, nothing more. 

But like I said, I don't know what's the truth of the matter, and I'm reluctant to be influenced by my parental instinct and act emotionally, and then demand for a harsher punishment for someone who might possibly not deserve it. May I repeat, "justice", despite the glory and grandness of that word, is sometimes very cruel and unfair!

Beliefs

I commented on a friend's 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 post recently, and it had something to do with religions. Then someone else replied to my comment. We went on to have a few more exchanges of replies to each other. He is not on my friend's list. In fact, he is a total stranger to me.

The gist of the "discussion" revolved around him trying to convince me the "truth" of Bible, and he furnished "evidence", saying that the original texts are from authentic manuscripts dating from thousands of years ago. In return, I did not accept that as "evidence", because to me, a history book is just that — a book written by someone who claims so-and-so, based on what they heard from someone else. Just that in this case, it's a history book from eons ago.

A couple of days after the comments and counter-comments between us, I was surprised to get a private message from him through 𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟. I mean "𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟" as in the app, not "𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟" as in Jesus as the "𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑜𝑑". Apparently he had not given up on wanting to save this poor lost soul. He was not being rude or imposing, like most religious people are, so I did not mind to indulge in the private "discussion" with him.

The truth is that I am a Catholic. I'm given the religion by my parents, and I was even baptized and went through the so-called "confirmation" process when I was still in primary school. However, the biggest tragedy was that I am born with a brain, and I used that brain to 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌 things out for a bit. Consequently, I have been a non-believer throughout my adult life. My wife, on the other hand, is a devout Christian and makes it a point to go to church every Sunday.

From a very young age, there's something about religions that I just can't accept. I mean 𝒂𝒍𝒍 religions, not just Christianity. Most religions are based on their respective "holy books". In them are supposedly God's messages to humankind. There are also numerous stories, some in parables, some in plain ordinary languages. I had on numerous occasions in the past, read some portions of the "holy book" in an attempt to get to know God.

Well, who is God? What have I discovered about him? He is said to be the supreme being who created everything — he created the universe, the planets, and all lifeforms including us humans. He is said to be "the loving father". But although he is "loving", he is liable to lose his temper and go on a killing rampage. He could suddenly flood the entire world and drown everyone in it, including infants and unborn children, except for one family and pairs of all the animals in the world. Time and time again over the eons, he killed many others through earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor strikes, hurricanes, and pandemics to name just a few.

Some contents of the "holy books" are reflections of human nature, and not that of a divine and loving being. For example, slavery was allowed. I sometimes try to imagine how would I react if someone orders me to kill my own child to prove my loyalty to him. Well, I would probably say, "𝑭*𝒄𝒌 𝒚𝒐𝒖!". I can't even begin to think of killing my own child for whatever reason. If it really comes to that, I might even be willing to sacrifice my own life to save my child.

However, having said all those, I keep an open mind. I've always said that I respect the beliefs of others. They all have the rights to believe in whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. Respect should be mutual; it is a two-way street. I don't judge them because of their beliefs; and I would expect them not to judge me because of my belief.

Gender Wage Gap

I find this article in The Star, dated 07 March 2025, on gender wage gap in Malaysia interesting, though perhaps not surprising. In a nutshell, Malaysian women are earning less than men, and the wage gap is widening. This is based on the calculations on the median monthly salaries reported by the Statistics Department.

It has been reported that the government is taking steps to narrow down the wage gap between men and women. But the way I see it, actually it is doing exactly the opposite! For example, the increase in the number of days for women under the heading of "maternity leave" from 60 days to 98 days. Mathematically, that is an increase of over 60%. 98 days is more than 3 months without doing any work for the employer, but receiving full salary nevertheless. In many cases, apart from paying an employee full salaries for over 3 months, the employer would also have to incur additional cost to hire temporary workers to do the job while its full-time employee is on maternity leave. Furthermore, in Malaysia, a fair number of women would have several children. So the 98 days of fully-paid leave is not a one-off business. Maternity leave is a very expensive thing for the employer!

I'm sure the government has a good reason for the increase in maternity leave up to 98 days — no doubt it's very good for the new mother — but as an "attempt to narrow down the wage gap between the genders" is definitely not one of those reasons.

For ages now, women have been complaining about equal wages; or rather unequal wages with their male counterparts, because they're only looking at the numbers that they see on their own pay cheques, and then compare those numbers with the numbers on their male counterparts' pay cheques. Hardly any of them would even consider seeing those numbers from the employers' point of view. Hardly any of them would remember that they're getting more than 3 months of free money, because obviously that money fell down from the sky and they're entitled to it somehow.

Incidentally I've noticed another interesting trend in Malaysia. From the top of my head, roughly two-thirds of university students are made up of girls, though admittedly I haven't conducted any serious research to determine the exact figure. Of course this is seeing the trend from the general point of view. Obviously, some university courses may be dominated by boys. The net result is that whenever there is a job vacancy, roughly two-thirds of the applicants would be made up of women. 

Mathematically speaking, there is a two-third chance that women would be hired rather than men. That is roughly the situation in my office right now! I think this is a sad trend in Malaysia, because in all honesty, if I have a choice, if all else remain the same, I would hire a male. It's not just about the maternity leave that I speak of above. There are numerous other reasons. For example, the job may involve inspections of plantations in rural areas which may extend into the evenings. Between men and women, which would you hire for such jobs? If I hired a woman and she gets stranded in the jungle at night, I seriously doubt that I can forgive myself as the employer, and I would have a lot of explaining to do to her family too. However, when I do eventually employ a female, I make it a point to pay her the same amount as what I would pay a male for the same job.

When we talk about job equality or wages equality between women and men, we shouldn't look at the figures on the pay cheques only. There are many other intangible factors to be taken into consideration too. I'm convinced that the job market adjusts itself based on all these factors — tangible and intangible — to arrive at a certain equilibrium. Whatever new policies that the government comes up with will have an impact on that equilibrium. The equilibrium may be such that the wage gap will narrow down or widen up, but yet if all the factors are taken into account, there is still equality.

The Ugliest Definition

The case of a 19-year old college student who was found guilty of raping an underage girl, and ordered by the Session Court to undergo 240 hours of community service within 12 months [The Star]. The victim was a 14-year old girl, three months shy of her 15th birthday. Apparently, there was something in the order of an outcry from the public — most people considered the punishment as too light for the crime of rape.

"Rape" is an ugly word, and most people see that word to mean one thing — and only one thing — which is the act of sex involving the use of force by the rapist on his victim. But actually, there may be different meanings of that word, at least in the eyes of the law. 

In Malaysia, the law is such that sex with an underage girl, even if it's consensual sex, i.e. no element of force in the act, falls under the definition of statutory rape. There is, therefore, no necessity to prove the element of force in the act. As long as the "victim" is an underage girl, it is rape. If, on the other hand, the man marries the underage girl, and then have consensual sex with her, then that is not rape. Of course there will be numerous legal requirements to be met in order to marry an underage girl, but the point is that it's entirely possible in Malaysia. So what we have here are two possible scenarios of sex with an underage girl, both consensual in nature, but one falls under the crime of rape in the eyes of the law.

However, the law may be different from one country to another. Such law may not be available in some other countries. Which means that in those other countries, if two minors have consensual sex, the issue of rape does not arise at all. No rape, therefore no punishment.

"Crime and punishment" is a difficult subject, but although I pay attention on the "crime" itself, I tend to pay a closer attention on the "intensions" of the parties. I'm thinking, the circumstances of the "crime" are totally different, depending on whether the girl was forced into having sex, and whether she's a willing party. To me, the extent of the punishment shall reflect the nature of the "crime" and where exactly does it sit on the scale of  the victim is "forced into doing it" and "willing to do it". Unfortunately, most people only see that word "rape", and then take the ugliest definition of that word, and would therefore expect the heaviest punishment for the "crime". Hence the outcry.

The reality is that most people don't really care about the micro aspect of the case; they only see it from the macro perspective. In fact, it's also possible that they only read the headline and the first paragraph, and then comment on the subject. They see that ugly word "rape" and then become overwhelmed by the kneejerk reaction!

On the other hand, journalists, when reporting on the case, also made it a point to omit the justifications for the punishment. Whatever justification given by the judge — I'm sure there must have been at least some justifications for the punishment — is carefully left out, because the papers are only seeking to sell papers, and to attract as many eyeballs as possible to the article. They're seeking the kneejerk reaction that I speak of above from the public, because they knew that the article will be shared like wild fire.

I've delayed posting this article for a few days in the hope that the papers will follow up with another piece, perhaps that of the judge's justifications for the punishment. Maybe that report will come soon, but so far I have not seen any. Because I only know the macro of the case, and not the micro, I can't comment on whether the punishment is sufficient or justifiable for the crime.

Alien—Something From Nothing

 

I saw Alien: Romulus while I was on vacation in Melbourne recently. I used to have frequent movie dates with my daughter when she was younger. But she's been pursuing her studies in Melbourne for some years now, and I haven't had a chance to do the movie thing with her for such a long time already. So when Alien: Romulus opened in a nearby cinema, I seized the opportunity to spend the afternoon with her at the cinema.

I've been a big fan of the Aliens franchise for so long now—in fact since I was a teenager. There've been so many movies spanning a few decades, and some of them crossed over with the Predator franchise, which is also another of my favourite. But this post is not a movie review. So if you haven't seen Romulus, fear not, there is no worries of spoilers here.

For some years now, I've been meaning to comment about the premise of this interesting creature. It is referred to as a "Xenomorph". The basic idea of its life cycle is quite similar to most insects—that is to say starting from an egg which then hatches into some sort of "larva". The latter then develops into a pre-adult form, and may have to change its exoskeleton several times before reaching adulthood. At least that's the general life cycle of most insects.

The life cycle of the Xenomorph is slightly different from that of the typical insect. An adult queen xenomorph lays the eggs. Each egg produces a spidery creature with a long tail, which requires a host to perform a second stage of egg-laying process. If it can find a host, it will lay its egg through the mouth. That egg will then "incubate" in that host and when it's ready for the next stage of development, it will burst out of the host, thus killing the latter. But after leaving the host, it has never been shown in detail how the creature would develop into its adult form. The only thing that the audience is shown is that the creature will go through at least one stage of cocoon, where it will form some sort of protective layer within which it will lay dormant while developing into its adult form. In the case of insects and crustaceans in general, there will be several stages of changing the exoskeleton, but I'm not sure if it's the same with the Xenomorph. In my mind, it is entirely possible that the Xenomorph may have to go through several stages of changing its exoskeleton before reaching full maturity, but I can find no source to confirm this.

Life finds a way, and although the Xenomorph is a fictional creature, I can accept the basic notion of its life cycle. In fact, I'm very impressed with the original story teller for his creativity in conjuring up such a process. I think such a life cycle is at least possible—it's not an idea that I would simply dismiss just because there is no such creature in the world. However, I've never been able to accept the developmental stages beyond the first host. I think there is simply no logic in it!

Science and common sense dictate that we need to have something to make something. The caterpillar, for example would need to find a source of materials or nutrients, say by feeding on leaves, before forming a cocoon to develop into the next stage of its life. Similarly, maggots would feed on rotten food source for its nutrients before developing into their next stage of life. These creatures need to have the "bricks and mortar to build bigger, stronger and more sophisticated structures".

The Xenomorph, however, consumes nothing after bursting out of its host. There is to my mind no nutrients to be used to grow, build exoskeleton, muscles, and other more sophisticated body parts. When bursting out of its host, it is very tiny. But it can grow so much larger (perhaps 50 times larger), stronger, and heavier into its adult form without requiring any material/nutrient for the process. It is no more, no less, a case of building something from nothing!

After so many movies featuring the Xenomorphs in a span of over 4 decades, no one has yet been able to explain satisfactorily this particular point regarding its life cycle. I said earlier that I'm impressed with the story teller for coming up with the idea of the fascinating life cycle. But I would be even more impressed if he can explain once and for all, how the Xenomorph can build something from nothing.

KK Challenge 16 - A Different Way

If you have been hunting for a long time, you're bound to notice that there are recurring tricks in the questions. The setters have the tendency to repeat some words as clues for specific answers. For example, the expression, "The French" has been used many, many times to point to the words "LE" or "LA"; "Love" to point to the digit "ZERO"; letters of the alphabet used to represent numbers in the form of the roman numerals. 

The inclusion of the word "way" in the question very frequently refers to road signs, and it covers quite a wide range of possible words, such as ROAD (RD), JALAN (JLN), LORONG (LRG), PATH, LANE, AVENUE (AVE) etc. Yes, abbreviations are commonly included, and the setter owes no duty of informing the solver that abbreviations are involved in the riddle!

For example, the following is a question that I set some 16 years ago during my early days as the Clerk-of-Course (CoC):

Q) Follow this way to get the answer, 8 of which results in a gross outcome!

A) JLN LAPAN BELAS

Now let's anaylse the question. It says, follow this "WAY", meaning that whatever is the answer that we're looking for, it follows the word "WAY" on the signboard. In this case, "WAY" = "JLN" (abbreviation for JALAN). But now the solver has to solve "8 of which results in a gross outcome".

As you can see, 8 of LAPAN BELAS = 8 X 18 = 144; and 144 is equivalent to a GROSS. That is why the required answer is: JLN LAPAN BELAS.

In July last year, when I organized the KK Challenge 15, I set the following question:

Q) Seen at the end of 4 months, it's one way to get the answer

A) BERI LALUAN

The explanation is like this. Those 3 letters, "BER" are seen at the end of 4 months, i.e. SeptemBER, OctoBER, NovemBER and DecemBER. Then what about that letter "i"? Well, it's ONE, as a roman numeral. And then we come to that word "WAY" again, and again it's referring to a road sign. In this case, that "WAY" is equated to the word "LALUAN" on the board.

Many of the hunters that have joined my previous hunts would know that I'm obsessed with psychology, and I have the tendency to experiment with hunters on account of psychology! Humans are after all quite similar with most other mammals - they are essentially creatures of habit. When they are used to seeing that word "WAY" in hunt questions as indicating road signs, they will program their minds to automatically narrow down their search to mainly road signs only.

I was wondering to myself, what if I can set a question with the involvement of the word "WAY", but not referring to a road sign? How difficult would it be to extract oneself from the notion of focusing on the road signs in the sector?

That was my thought process when I set this question:

Q33) The way to take a break?

The question itself isn't very sophisticated, and when I set it, I had intended it to be of par difficulty and perhaps solvable by even a new hunter. That is why I was surprised when only one team was able to solve it during the hunt! Another team got the answer, but they did not actually solve it.

REFLEXOLOGY AVEREST

As you can see, that word "WAY" in the question is still referring to the kind of way commonly used in cryptic questions, but here is it not referring to a road sign! In this case, "WAY" = "AVE" (abbreviation for AVENUE); and then the expression "TAKE A BREAK" is of course "REST". Joining the 2 components together by the charade operation would yield the word "AVEREST". As I said, not a very sophisticated riddle, but when the mind keeps trying to make the connection with road signs, it can be a challenging question anyway!

The use of the word "WAY" in this case is still the same as the many "ways" that have been used in past hunt questions, but it is a different way here because it does not refer to the road sign!

KK Challenge 16 - The Anchor

Each treasure hunt setter, otherwise commonly referred to as the Clerk-of-Course (CoC), has his or her peculiar style when setting questions. I have been known to set some tough questions, and I do realize that some hunters have not forgiven me for some of my diabolical ones up to now. Although tough, I would usually provide an escape route in my questions, something that I have been referring to as the "anchor".

Now take this question from last Sunday's KK Challenge 16 (KKC16):

Q2) Letter to look at?

MUSEE

In my opinion, looking at the riddle from the setter's point of view, it's not a very tough question, although of course I do realize that I may be accused of being bias. But more than half of the participating teams failed to solve it, including the first runner up of the hunt. The "escape route" that I speak of is that word "SEE" on the board, which in this case is a highly visible sign. That is the anchor that the solver can latch on to, thus narrowing the scope of search substantially. It is the anchor because SEE = LOOK AT. What remains then is the figure out the connection between MU and LETTER, and here, even if the solver does not know that MU is a Greek letter, that information can very easily be confirmed through Googling. Besides, even if the solver is so lazy to Google up information, he should at least choose this answer anyway, since that "SEE" is already connected to half of the question.

The following is another example from last Sunday:

Q5) Spirit from the east, and from a different world?

An intimidating-looking question which only 4 out of 16 teams were able to solve. Although the question is made up of a single sentence, I have inserted a comma in that sentence to indicate the boundary for the 2 different clues therein.

KARA KARA

The first challenge is to realize that the "Spirit" in the sentence is referring to alcoholic drink, and thinking in English and Malay, one should very quickly yield the Malay word ARAK. This is then to be reversed on account of the reversal indicator "from the east", to form the word KARA. I don't think that it is impossibly difficult to find at least that first KARA. That first KARA then becomes the anchor which the solver can use to narrow down his search. Beyond that point the only remaining task is therefore to discover the connection between "from a different world" and that second KARA. And here, my contention is that even if the solver does not know that Supergirl a.k.a KARA Zor-El is "from a different world", i.e. from a planet far, far away known as Krypton, the solver should at least opt for this answer anyway, because he has solved half of the clue. It's a promising answer and worth trying!

Finally, we come to one of the highlights of the day; a question that I'm expecting the hunters not to forgive me for a very long time to come, because nobody could solve it!

Q20) Blind saxophonist of the movie comes here?

SELAMAT DATANG

A seemingly boundless search for the name of a "blind saxophonist of the movie". I suppose if time is available, with enough patience, the solver can sift through the many hits from Google, and is bound to find the correct name anyway. But what about in the hunt setting where time resources is limited?

Well, the point is that the solver should have made the connection between COMES and DATANG in a jiffy. That is the escape route that the setter has provided to narrow down the search substantially, and the remaining task would then be to confirm if SELAMAT can be connected to "Blind saxophonist of the movie". Perhaps what follows then is to Google up, say, "Blind saxophonist SALAMAT", something like that, and Google will do the rest! Even if the solver can't find Kassim SELAMAT (Ibu Mertuakku, 1962), as a last resort, if there is nothing else looking promising within that sector, why not just opt for SELAMAT DATANG anyway on account of COMES = DATANG? 

The above answers were all highly visible signs and fairly easily spotted from the vehicle. As the setter, I feel like I have done my part to be fair in my questions. What remains is for the hunters to do their part to find the answers with the help of the anchor that I have provided them.