Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Dr Rais Yatim should be commended for pointing out to the public that as a matter of law it is the responsibility of the police to serve traffic summonses and bring notification thereof to the attention of traffic offenders instead of the other way around in which the motoring public have to queue up at police stations to find out whether they have outstanding traffic summonses, the non settlement of which attracts grave consequences such as issuance of warrant of arrest and being hand-cuffed in public when apprehended in road blocks ( The Star , May 4).

The problem is not just a question of law, that the Road Traffic ordinance makes no provision of an offender being "deemed" served the summon when caught on camera unknown to him.

This whole Ops Warta II (with combinations of 'carrot' of fine reduction and 'stick' of warrant of arrest being issued) is aimed at the traffic police convenience to now liquidate outstanding summonses yet not served and unsettled by reason of either inefficiency or lack of resources or manpower.

That is however not the publics problem and there is no reason why the motoring public should now be harassed, put to distress, inconvenience and prejudice just so to bridge the police failure to clear the administrative backlog of these summonses in the first place.

For to do so would make the public, police servants and not the police, public servants!

It is good that the Inspector-General of Police is looking into ways to facilitate settlement of summonses through banks, post offices or even credit cards. These measures are for public convenience.

But by no means should the principle be adopted that summonses and notification of commission of traffic offences are "deemed" served by the fact of their commission being caught on camera or etched in police records but unknown to the offender unless they are actually served either by AR registered letters or handed personally to the offenders.

Neither should the burden of finding out be shifted to the public when that is the responsibility of the enforcers of traffic rules, i.e. the police, to serve the summonses. (This is the basic principle of fairness to the public).

I would suggest that this should be the position even if the police has a website to list therein all car numbers and owners who have outstanding summonses.

Don't forget that the public may do the police a favour by visiting the station to find out about whether they have any summonses. This is however a privilege extended to facilitate the work of the police as public servants but not a legal duty on the publics part or a legal right on the part of the authorities to expect.

Rais, being a lawyer by training, is in the position to clarify the finer points of the law.

Sometimes he gives an interpretation that is manifestly pro-authorities, and disliked by human rights activists and civil groups; other times, he gives an interpretation that is not liked by the authorities but which is nevertheless legally correct, and vigilant in guard of the ordinary people's legal interest for which he should be commended.

(One can expect the queue at police stations to immediately vanish and those who lined up to pay the fines, curse that they had done so).

Whatever Rais motives (whether public duty or scoring political points), the incontrovertible fact is that if we pride ourselves as a nation of, and governed by laws.

We not only need the Bar Council, lawyers and human rights activists to be vigilant of the publics legal rights but also someone of authority and legal standing on the other side to state the legal position, and limits on public affairs such as Ops Warta II.