Stumbled upon this paragraphs on the latest International Herald Tribune article:

Mastor Mohamad Ariff, the deputy commander of the squad, told the court that his men were trained never to question their orders.”In other words, they are like robots?” asked the lead prosecutor, Abdul Majid Hamzah. He was on the witness stand, answering questions about the 2nd accused – Sirul Azhar’s ‘inadmissible’ confession about Altantuya’s murder.

“Yes, they only receive instructions from their superiors,” said Mastor.

Before he ended his testimony, the senior police officer said Abdul Razak Baginda should not have been able to order C/Insp Azilah to commit any crime. (TheSTAR).

So, the question is: WHO IS/ARE THE SUPERIOR (S)?

Will the DPPs pursue this question? We would have to ‘wait and see’.

Otherwise, over at Thomas Fuller’s IHT:

Observers say they are satisfied with the seemingly unfettered flow of testimony from witnesses and the fact that details of the trial are reported daily in the country’s pro-government newspapers, often on the front pages.

“So far, overall, I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it seems to be fair and open,” said Ramon Navaratnam, a former deputy secretary general of the Malaysian Finance Ministry, who is president of the Malaysian chapter of Transparency International, an anti-corruption organization. “There are no holds barred,” he said. “The judge seems to be very neutral.”

Say…Mr. Fuller, why didn’t you interview me? Or the least you can do is read all the intelligent comments on this blog, and you get a picture what real people think (about the Altantuya trials).


13 responses »

  1. lucia says:

    hey nice new design, susan. i like the soft light blue colour (one of my fav – i like blue and green!).

    yeah, i wonder will the prosecution pursue the matter on ‘who gave the orders to the robots’. they might not, just like they did not pursue the matter of the ‘dinner photo.

    “they received instructions from their superiors and they are NOT to question the orders at all” – well, doesn’t this say all, tells all? so this means what they did came from their superior!! it’s so obvious!

  2. anonymous says:

    They are not like robots because if ordered by their superiors to blow themselves up with C4, they would certainly disobey and would question the order. In simple language, they are just a bunch of cowardly crooks, similar to that terrorist mufti Abdul Aziz Ghazi who cross-dressed as an auntie in a burka to escape from the Red Mosque

  3. OA says:


    “So far, overall, I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it seems to be fair and open,” said Ramon Navaratnam




  4. insider says:

    Ramon Navaratnam the former KSP of Treasury is a government apologist. I think he did not went into all the testimonies of the trial. Whats so fair and open?? My GOD!!!

  5. KerinchiGuy says:

    hmm, i wonder if they are governed by Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”

    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

  6. hutchrun says:

    [ ]
    The situation gets much more complicated when we consider states of conflict.

    Imagine that a robot is obliged to harm one human in order to prevent him from hurting another. The Laws are absolutely inadequate in this case. The robot should either establish an empirical hierarchy of injuries – or an empirical hierarchy of humans. Should we, as humans, rely on robots or on their manufacturers (however wise, moral and compassionate) to make this selection for us? Should we abide by their judgment which injury is the more serious and warrants an intervention?

    A summary of the Asimov Laws would give us the following “truth table”:

    A robot must obey human commands except if:

    1.Obeying them is likely to cause injury to a human, or
    2.Obeying them will let a human be injured.
    A robot must protect its own existence with three exceptions:

    1.That such self-protection is injurious to a human;
    2.That such self-protection entails inaction in the face of potential injury to a human;
    3.That such self-protection results in robot insubordination (failing to obey human instructions).

    Trying to create a truth table based on these conditions is the best way to demonstrate the problematic nature of Asimov’s idealized yet highly impractical world.

  7. hutchrun says:

    And that`s from:

    Asimov did dwell on that further in The Foundation series.

  8. kittykat46 says:

    Officers in elite forces like this are trained to obey orders without question, and also not to act without orders.
    It is a necessary part of their discipline, as they may be called upon to to perform tasks which put high risk on their personal safety and life.
    Those interested in the psychology of such elite forces can look up books on the history of the SAS and SEALS.

    IF the accused officers really did act as ordered by their chain of command, and now find themselves charged with murder, I can bet you the UTK members are feeling very frustrated and angry right now.

    Question is Who is in their chain of Command ?

  9. anonymous says:

    Little wonder the three monkeys deny any invovement or knowledge in the murder– they did not do it! The real murderer is the butler—The-Butler-Did-It! Yeah, free the three monkeys and arrenst the butler. This is justice Malaysian style

  10. anony says:

    So, the question is: WHO IS/ARE THE SUPERIOR (S)?

    I know,
    You know,
    We know,
    She(the murder victim, too late) knows,
    He (the superior) knows,
    They (the UTK, prosecutors, judge and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all) know,
    Only the PM makes dunno.

  11. ghenjis khan says:

    ACP Mastor testified that Sirul did not take gun on that day.

    Suddenly, a junior woman constable, testified, Sirul took a Machine Gun.

    And the PM will say ” I don’t know” , we presume!

  12. wits0 says:

    Can he be believed?

  13. notsosmart says:

    Guys….We are talking about Malaysian Robot, model IQ20.

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