Wednesday, October 24, 2012

AES System

I came across an opinion from a fellow blogger on the AES System that the government implemented a while a go.
I fully concur with his opinion and regardless what other people say over the AES, i still agreed on the implemented as in the long run it will help to educate drivers & lawbreakers to abide by the rules and respect them.
This will reduce significant road accidents which the main factors come from speed & human error.

Please don't politicize the issue, it is actually good system. In my honest opinion, only law-breaker are against this system. If you follow the law, for sure you will not be penalized.  as easy as that.

Let us ponder on his opinion, which he did not left any name:-
Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of fuss on the newly implemented Automated Enforcement System (AES) over the media since the past few days, with politicians from the Opposition picking up on this issue and turning it into a political circus.

Why are we so hard-pressed on defending traffic offenders? Don’t we use the road every day and realize how annoying and sometimes dangerous these reckless law-breakers are?

Speeding, breaking of red lights, queue jumping, overtaking on double lines as well as those who enter restricted roads during peak hours; these are daily occurrences in our traffic experience.

Why should we be worried or afraid if we are all law-abiding citizens?

Are we simply a nation of reckless drivers when we are voicing our dissatisfaction over a new system that could ensure road safety for all of us?

First of all, the AES has been implemented all over the world especially in developed countries such as France, Germany, Australia, Singapore and the United States. There are 90 countries from around the world that have implemented similar electronic systems, and the results have been more than satisfactory.

Take France for an example, the number of deaths on the road have dropped by 27 per cent within just three years of implementation. In Kuwait, the rate of traffic accidents has reduced by 48 per cent while in Germany, 80 per cent of road users are complying to traffic laws in the designated AES locations.

Since its first phase implementation in our country on Sept 23 this year, the 14 cameras that had been installed at the blackspot locations in Perak, Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya reportedly captured a total of 63,558 traffic offences within the first eight days.

This figure should serve as a reminder for all of us to obey traffic laws, not to concoct some sort of vilified argument that the government and its cronies are robbing us! And guess what, the number of drivers caught for traffic violation fell by more than half in the past week. Road users are now more careful and are complying with traffic laws because they do not want to get caught red-handed on 11MP high resolution cameras that could not only capture still images but video footages as well by the roadsides.

How could this be a bad thing for the people of Malaysia?

We need to be reminded of the purpose and advantages of the system in the first place.

The AES carries a variety of advantages, other than the prime objective of ensuring the safety of all road users. Let us be reminded again that the AES is not a system of hidden cameras where policemen hide in bushes along the highway.
Warning signboards are placed near the designated locations to remind us that we should obey the law. Photographs of vehicles and license plate number of the offenders are reviewed at the AES control centre and will be passed on to JPJ for the issuance of a fine or summons.

Here is the baffling part. The summons issued are real-time evidence based, they help to reduce human interference in the issuance of summons, which is another way of saying we could reduce or eradicate bribery. Isn’t that what Malaysia wants? We condemn corruption and bribery 24/7 and now, all the sudden, we are against a system that could stop it? We are against bribery but it is okay to break traffic laws?

Another great aspect of the AES is that it helps to decrease the number of personnel currently conducting the tasks manually, i.e. the policemen hiding in bushes. They could be remobilized to provide more value-added service such as easing traffic congestion around the city. As much as you hate being secretly monitored while driving, do you think these policemen love to hide in bushes? They have other work too.

The AES increases the effectiveness of traffic enforcement through a system that works around the clock -- in rain or shine. It does not discriminate under any circumstances, as there are no direct personal interaction between traffic offenders and the system, nor does it discriminate between private, commercial or public vehicles.

The AES also aims to increase the POBC (Perception of Being Caught) rate among Malaysian road users thereby reducing the rate of accidents. Normally, the POBC rate among Malaysian road users is 25 percent on regular days and 50 per cent during festive seasons where road safety campaigns such as Ops Sikap are being implemented.

In developed countries where road users are more disciplined and knowledgeable, the POBC rate is between 80-90 per cent. We still have a long way to go, but what we are in the right direction. Let us see what happens when more cameras are installed at all the 817 blackspots all over the country.

Certain people are calling the AES “highway robbery” and some even went further by demanding to change the name to “Saman 1-Malaysia.” Penang Chief Minister cited it as a tool to milk the rakyat for maximum profits rather than to serve as deterrent to traffic offenders.

A business is still a business and these companies need to make money at some point, needn’t they? According to the Transport Ministry, the government did not fork out a single sen for AES and these companies will bear all the cost. If this is true, then they have to obtain loans from financial institutions to purchase the AES cameras and the technology, and like any other business, these concessionaires are anticipating returns from their investment.

Nobody made a fuss when MyeG Berhad charges a small administrative fee to process online applications such as traffic summons and road tax renewal, then how come the public is angry with the government and the two companies when they are working around the same business model?

There shouldn’t be any fuss over AES should we aspire to become a civilized, cultured and matured society. We cross our fingers in optimism that in the longer run, the AES will be effective in reducing fatal road accidents, as proven in many other countries around the world. There are approximately 20 million registered vehicles in the country and the number of traffic accidents and deaths are growing each year. Sure, the issuance of summons does not stop irresponsible drivers from making our roads a living nightmare for all of us, but we should start somewhere, shouldn’t we?

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

This is why our football quality will never improve.

International spotlight

MORE than just Terengganu's reputation is at stake with the recent sacking of head coach Peter Butler.
     Malaysian football is now under scrutiny as news about the way the Englishman's contract was terminated by the Terengganu FA circulated on the international  scene.

    Butler, who used to play for West Ham United and West Bromwich Albion in the English Premier League, said his sudden removal as Terengganu head coach made the news not only in England but also in other countries.
    "My controversial dismissal from the team was among the topics discussed on UK's television and radio talk shows," Butler disclosed yesterday.
    "It has been awhile since I was in the news back home but now my stories can be found in the Guardian, Independent and a few other newspapers."
The 46-year-old coach, who was  in Kuala Lumpur yesterday to deliver  a copy of his appeal letter to the FA of Malaysia, said many people were  curious as to why the players cannot be disciplined by their coaches. (READ MORE AT SOURCE)

azred : Shame on the Terengganu FA, when will ever Malaysia football restore its glory as the in the 90th? How can we improve if the discipline among the player are at worst and the coach was been fired for trying to get things done? Oh man.. come on guys be mature already.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Sony Xperia GO : Way to GO sony!!

there is a new kid on the block. Xperia GO. with 2.3 Gingerbread Android OS powered by 1ghz dual core cortex a9. I might consider this beside Galaxy S3.

why? it is not as funky & futuristic as S3 but it durability and toughness amaze me.

don't believe me. see this :-

it come in 3 colour which i like white the most and the RRP in Malaysia is RM999. wow cheap and durable.
if i bought this it may ease my mind whenever my son is holding my phone or accidently drop it into the water.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Samsung Galaxy S3 Allshare Capabilities

Monday, July 9, 2012

Exploded Galaxy S III likely to be caused by microwave

Exploded Galaxy S III likely to be caused by microwave

posted by soyacincau.

 i bet this is the case of user wanted to get free replacement unit and said the device suddenly exploded while charging.

i bet what happen actually that this dude accidently wet his s3 and later try to dried it up in a microwave and the thing exploded.

read his comment on a forum,

he retracted his original statement after FIUK have come out with the investigation report.

source :

Perhaps one of the best anti-smoking ads ever created

something to share today

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Tax : IRB cannot take legal action?

PUTRAJAYA: THE Inland Revenue Board is not empowered to take legal action against those who fail to pay their income tax or commit other offences under the Income Tax Act 1967.
The Court of Appeal ruled that if the board did so, without first obtaining permission from the public prosecutor, it would be null and void.
A three-man bench, led by Datuk Abu Samah Noordin, made the landmark ruling in allowing an appeal by siblings Khaw Siang Hee, Siang Siang, Siang Leng and their mother, Lim Yok Lui @Lim Gek Looi, who were charged in a Penang magistrate's court for failing to declare their combined income amounting to RM700,000 for years of assessment 2003 and 2004.
The unanimous ruling, delivered on Thursday, would be a precedent as the decision of the Court of Appeal was final.
The four, who were represented by S. Vijaya Retnam, had appealed against the decision of judicial comissioner Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah, who heard the case by way of revision in November 2010.
A magistrate's court had, on October 2010, granted the four a discharge not amounting to acquittal as the board had not obtained sanction from the public prosecutor to institute action.
Vijaya Retnam had told the Court of Appeal that under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution, only the public prosecutor had the power to institute, conduct and discontinue any criminal proceeding.
He said the board did not have any power of the public prosecutor.
"Thus, their action is unconstitutional, and null and void."
He added that the sanction of the public prosecutor must be obtained to institute criminal action under the Income Tax Act.
Vijaya Retnam, a former board employee before he became a lawyer, said all revenue counsel currently serving in the board were not gazetted deputy public prosecutors following the corporatisation of the board in 1995.
"They are merely counsel who are directly employed by the board after corporatisation," he said.
The lawyer said the offence for failing to declare one's income was punishable by imprisonment of a maximum of three years and treble the amount of tax evaded, plus a special penalty of RM20,000.
He said it was a serious offence and the investigation papers should have been perused by the public prosecutor.
Vijaya Retnam said unlike the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission or the Customs Department, the board did not have the authority to prosecute

Azred : quoted from NST (30.6.2012) said that the Appeal Court says revenue counsel are not empowered to act against those who fail to pay income tax. This mean IRB cannot charge the taxpayer to court by its Legal Department.

However, they still can send compound letter and Notices or Summons to the tax payer, unless IRB obtained concrete evidence, they still can take legal action but through Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) just like police case. They only have the power to investigate, then handover to DPP for legal action.

During the past, legal action was taken by IRB legal department and actually it is a wrong procedure.

For the case above, in my opinion, although the case have been thrown aside by C.O.A. The IRB can still charge the defendant against by way of DPP. the defendant maybe happy that they won the appeal but i'm sure the IRB will submit to DPP for recovering the lost revenue.

enough said, do pay your tax. it is your obligations towards Malaysia.