The report in the Star (Dec 20, 2002) entitled 'Alien jailed for identity fraud' greatly distressed me. The Indian national named Johnson Jesudass lived in Malaysia for 18 years, owned a business employing 14 Malaysians and is married to a Malaysian who is seven months pregnant.

He appears to be someone who is making a contribution to the economy. In most democratic and civil societies, Johnson would have qualified for permanent residence, if not citizenship, based o­n the above fact instead of being prosecuted as an illegal alien. Instead, the police chose to 'throw the book' at him, so to speak.

Johnson was not represented by counsel. Don't so-called illegal aliens have human rights in Malaysia? Why was he not assigned a public defender? Was the Indian High Commission aware of this case and was any legal assistance rendered him? It appears not!

While fraud and deception cannot be condoned, surely justice must take into account the specific circumstances of a case? We are fast becoming a nation of mandatory punishments. Presumably the three strokes of the cane to be meted out to this unfortunate soul is o­ne such punishment.

President Jimmy Carter o­nce said that America must continue to welcome immigrants as "everyone of us were immigrants at some point in history". This statement is just as true even for Malaysians of all races and religions. Most of our forefathers were at some point in history

probably illegal immigrants and boat people from China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Middle East, etc.

I fail to understand why such harsh sentences are imposed for relatively minor offences when white-collared criminals who plunder millions in public funds are often not even prosecuted, let alone punished adequately. Often, if prosecuted and convicted, these rich and influential criminals merely get the equivalent of a 'rap o­n the knuckles' as punishment.

Trial by jury was long ago abolished in Malaysia because the government did not want to risk placing the dispensation of justice in the hands of 11 laymen who may shirk from convicting criminals. Having done that, do we have to increasingly tie the judges' hands by legislating mandatory sentences? If we do not have confidence in the judges' exercise of discretionary authority, why were they appointed in the first place?

It is noteworthy that many parties, including Women and Family Affairs Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, objected to de facto Law Minister Rais Yatim's proposal to legislate the mandatory death sentence for certain types of rape. If we do not stop this ridiculous trend, we might as well just do away with judges and let computers dispense justice.

With respect, I strongly appeal to the judge of the Seremban High Court to call Johnson's case up for review and consider if there has been a miscarriage of justice. Justice must be fair but tempered with mercy and compassion. Incidentally, I wrote to the print media to appeal for a review of the case but my views did not see the light of day. I am sure it is not "contempt of court" to make such an appeal? Will Suhakam look into this perhaps?