I refer to Karpal Singh's traffic offence case in which he was issued two summonses for one offence and the Senior Federal Counsel said the traffic cops' system will reject a second payment for the same summons.

First of all, I wonder how many of the millions of summons over the years could have been duplications of summonses. If there had been one (and the police have been unlucky to have picked on Karpal), who is to say there are no others?

Just to show the fallibility of the police summonses, a few years ago, I was issued a speeding offence summons near Gua Tempurung on the North South Highway for speeding near the Tapah interchange. A week later, I appealed and managed to reduce the fine of RM150 (based on 128 kph) to RM80.

Then some two years later, I got a summons by post stating that I was speeding at 120kph along Jalan Duta. I was sure I did not commit the offence, so I asked a friend to get the photographic evidence. The photo showed a Volvo while the summons stated my car was a BMW! Even the registration numbers did not tally. Till today, I have this perception that the police could have taken the easy way out by just picking from existing records!

The other point I wish to stress is how are we to know if a second payment for the same offence will automatically be rejected? The Land Office in Batu Gajah, for one, has issued me so-called arrears for a few years which later turned out to be incorrect as fortunately I have kept the receipts. Because of such experiences, I have my doubts about the efficiency of computerisation. After all, computer systems are only as good as the correct data input — if we put in garbage, we will only get garbage in return.

My latest experience was with MPPJ. My son bought a house in Petaling Jaya in 2001 and as any lawyer would be able to attest, the transfer cannot be effected without a valid quit rent receipt for year 2001. Yet when we wanted to apply for renovation which required quit rent receipt for 2002, the Land Office system was not updated and we had to pay for 2001 again plus penalty together with the quite rent for 2002, under the previous owner's name! Two months later, in March, we received a quit rent bill for years 2001 and 2002 plus penalty again but now under my son's name under a new title number! If we were to pay again, the quit rent for 2001 would have been paid thrice and 2002, twice! Having said all that, the point I wish to stress is that the internal control systems are obviously lacking in both land offices and are wide open to abuse. Teeming and lading crossed my mind. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the police traffic computer system is not foolproof.