We arrest 60-year-old grandmothers for gambling while the rich swarm to Genting Highlands and to the horse races.

We jealously censor words, scenes and content in public broadcast while Astro customers are allowed to view (gasp!) kisses and other abominations.

We insist on an obsessive, monogamous relationship with our mother tongue but those who can afford to buy themselves expensive English tuition and a future.

We tell teachers they should teach out of love, not money, but never suggest that ministers could do the same.

When a crime is committed, we look first for Indonesians, then Bangladeshis, then drug users, then unemployed people, then Indians, then evidence. But usually we don't get that far. A child who gets molested or a wife who gets beaten is better off if the assailant is poor. Then there is a one in a million chance of a conviction. If he isn't, forget it.

A reporter who states (with proof) that someone is a corrupt imbecile gets sued for millions while our prime minister warbles on in delusional paranoia about everyone and still manages to sit pretty.

We are insanely selective about whose picture we show/blur out in the newspaper. Sometimes we protect the identity of victims or criminals, sometimes we don't. But when someone connected to the rich and powerful commits a crime, from fraud to murder, details have a way of disappearing. A rich man shot someone and all we know is that he is a rich man. Why hasn't he been named? He is not a minor.

Even malaysiakini , which has exposed criminals in the past, has not named the man who was arrested. Is there something we don't know? Have there been threats? Are words like 'alleged' or merely reports that he was released on bail not enough to protect journalists any more?

A man died over a parking space. Nope, a man died because we have a whole society of untouchables, protected by the police, the government, money and the courts. Is it any wonder that they are dangerously out of control?