YOURSAY 'If the cops are on shoot-first orders, criminals would more likely to shoot first as well. No one's safety is guaranteed.'

'What about rights of cops and crime victims?'

Ferdtan: Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, if you don't understand the right of one individual even he is a criminal suspect, then you have no business to be a minister.

In a democracy, an individual right is recognised just as important as to the rights of the society. Only in communist countries, society rights at large override the individual rights. So is Malaysia a communist country?

So don't twist the whole issue of your "shoot first" policy by being the champion of the police and the victims of crimes. We support the police and we don't want our security officers to be at risk doing their duty.

However for the minster to instruct them to shoot first is not only reckless but criminal. It is said that it is better for 10 guilty to go free than one innocent be convicted.

Likewise, it is better for 10 guilty not to be killed than one innocent killed. We hope our home minister is erudite enough to understand.

Pisang Goreng: Ferdtan, well said. Does Zahid or for that matter any Malaysian want democracy or not? If yes, then extrajudicial executions of the "bad guys" has no place in this system.

If police have evidence then suspects should be tried in court. If one doesn't agree on this basic principle of justice then perhaps one needs to brush up on their critical thinking skills (perhaps this is more useful than countless hours at tuition centres).

Yes, there are flaws in the system as it currently stands. Police executions (and encouragement of such executions some Malaysians) of gangsters and thugs will not fix these flaws and will not stop the tragedies faced by the victims that Zahid is supposedly defending.

Investment in better police training, evidence gathering technology and methods is a better solution. Addressing the causes of poverty and inequality in our society is a step deeper and closer to the root of this issue. This is what the public should demand.

Lim Chong Leong: The shoot-first policy does not protect the rights of victims or cops but a good criminal justice system does.

If the cops are on shoot-first orders, criminals would more likely to shoot first as well. No one's safety is guaranteed. But the minister would not understand that.

Cala: Judging from the amount of bashing "kaki pukul" Ahmad Zahid sustained in the past two days from almost every quarter except the MIC and the Umno, the public trust level on him must have reached an all-time low.

If he wishes to function as a responsible and dignified public figure, to apologise for his reckless remarks is the first step in the recovery phase.

His transgression is wrong on two counts. First, Malaysia has not been declared a state of emergency. So to shoot first and to explain later is obviously an act of irresponsibility of the highest order, akin to barbaric act.

Second, to put the blame on the Indians and painted the Malays as victims without substantiating it is naughty, racist and outright discriminatory as everyone knows crime is a complex subject which the state too has a role in it.

Swipenter: The way the laws of the country is being deliberately manipulated by the ruling politicians to suit their agenda is a sure sign that we are becoming a failed state.

The police has SOP (standard operating procedure) to follow and if the SOP includes a "shoot first and talk later" policy then we are in big trouble.

Secondly, redress for victims is through the courts and it must follow due process. The maxim that you are not guilty unless proven guilty must be upheld at all times.

Zahid is more dangerous than we think. He has openly endorsed the legitimacy of the Malay gangs and implicitly endorsed extrajudicial killings of criminals and suspected criminals.

Malaysian Born: There is no such thing as shoot first and ask questions later, certainly not in a legal sense that does not end up with all those involved being jailed, it is effectively extrajudicial murder.

This nonsense must be very embarrassing to the police force as they are being painted in a terrible light for no other reason than a politician whose education and competence does not qualify him to be in his current position.

To make these truly unacceptable comments in open or close door sessions with political hacks is an indication of a person who is entirely beyond their depth and without a clue of the damage he is doing nor its significance to our system of laws.

He does not get that these checks and restrictions are there not to protect the gangsters but to protect the innocent and that it is the court that decides not the idiot politician (selling his soul for votes), who is guilty and innocent.

Odin: It is clearer than daylight that this thug is terribly confused with the whole issue. To him, opposing of the Prevention of Crime Act (PCA), in particular the matter of detention without trial, means supporting of criminals. But that is certainly not the case.

People oppose it simply because it is an affront to justice; it is not fair to incarcerate a suspect for such a long time without giving him a chance to prove his innocence. Anyone arrested and detained is not a criminal but merely a suspect.

He is a criminal only when the party charging him has proved that he has committed an offence and a court of law has concurred and punished him.

To this minister, criticising of his and his government's policy of shooting first and asking questions later means ignoring of the rights of the police and of the victims. But that is not the case either.

The point which he is obviously unable to see because of his low intellect is that the person that the police think is a suspect may actually be totally innocent. The so-called evidence that the police have gathered may be invalid in part or even in whole.

Furthermore, the more reason it is unacceptable is that if the suspect is a non-Malay, he may be shot at with the intention to kill and not merely to disable. What if an innocent person is thus killed? Imagine the untold grief that his loved ones would go through.

And which brings us back to the question of the possibility of the so-called evidence being impaired. But it is understandable that this minister is confused, when he can't even differentiate between judicial review and detention without trial.

He is simply unworthy, unqualified, ill-equipped to occupy the position he is occupying. The most appropriate position for him is toilet cleaner.

James_3392: With cyber space as forum for discussions and dissemination of information and ideas, the vast disparity in intellectual capabilities between our national leaders (Umno leaders) and its citizen is being shown everyday.

It really strange how Zahid type of calibre can be made a minister of our country. From the writings on the cyber space, it really shows that Malaysia is not without talented people.

This is a phenomenon I can't offer a logical explanation when a foreigner friend asked me.

Home minister shoots his mouth off again

Now we know why PDRM is dead against IPCMC

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.