16.11.2009
There was deep disappointment and angry resignation when the Federal Court panel of five sat on Nov 5 to hear the Nizar vs Zambry appeal, immediately after rejecting Nizar’s request for a full panel to hear the case.
The appearance of the five judges alone was sufficient to impart the sense of foregone conclusion, for these are familiar faces that appeared in the series of hearings of the Federal Court held in respect of the current Perak constitutional crisis, and they all seemed to lean towards the Barisan Nasional.
The first three - Alauddin Sheriff, Arifin Zakaria and Zulkefli Makinudin – are virtually permanent fixture in the ‘Perak cases’, while the remaining two – Ghazali Yusoff and Hamid Embong – have also been involved. One cannot help but wonder: what happened to the rest? Why can’t we have fresh faces to also impart their wisdom over such a grave constitutional crisis?
What about the eminent Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Richard Malanjum, whose seniority was only next to Alauddin Sheriff (President of the Court of Appeal), and whose judgments often won admiration of the legal fraternity and the general public alike. He has not sat in a single case. Why should the country be deprived of the opportunity of tapping into his rich experience and much valued judgment?
Then, what about our very senior Justice Gopal Sri Ram – an appellate court judge since 1994 – who is distinguished by his deep legal knowledge and sound judgment delivered without fear or favour.
Surely, the participation of Malanjum and Sri Ram will restore some credibility to a judicial system already teetering on total mistrust, thanks to the long string of judicial decisions which have been perceived as blatantly biased and politically partisan since the crisis started in February this year.
SHOW OF ARROGANCE TO REJECT FULL PANEL
This is the third time that the Federal Court rejected NiZar Jamaluddin’s request for a full panel. And what irked the public is the court’s arrogance in rejecting the lawyers’ earnest, compelling and unassailable plea without bothering to offer the reasons of rejection.
That the coming court decision will be of paramount importance is underlined by the fact that it is expected to define the power limits and the inter-relationships of the triangle of King-Prime Minister-Parliament, though the case is over the Perak constitutional crisis. This is because state constitution and federal constitution are similar in these aspects of the law.
An affirmative decision in favour of Zambry will mean that in future the King is vested with the power to sack a Prime Minister. More than that, he can do so without the involvement of Parliament. This of course will mean the negation of the fundamental principles of democracy upon which this nation was founded.
Facing such a momentous decision, is it too much to ask for a full panel, or at least as wide a spectrum of judges as possible, to deliberate on an issue which may make or break our democratic system of government?
Since the Federal Court has convened panels of seven judges to hear drug related cases in the past, why can’t it convene a bigger panel for the current case, since the issues involved are many times more important?
And why make the ‘Perak cases’ the exclusive domain of the few judges who are already looked upon with increasing dismay by the public for their perceived political partisanship? Why meticulously keep these cases out of bound to the well regarded judges?
Doesn’t Chief Justice Zaki Azmi, who only a short while ago was an UMNO stalwart, owe the nation answers to these perplexing questions?
COURT OF APPEAL ERRED
The court completed hearing in one single day of Nov 5, the submissions from the lawyers of both the Appellant (Nizar) and the Respondent (Zambry) as well as from Attorney General Gani Patail. The latter appeared as intervener to help interpret the Perak and federal constitution, though in actual fact, he acted more like an attorney for the Respondent.
The arguments from both sides are largely repetitions of those presented in May in the lower courts, with the exception of the Appellant putting in some fresh arguments. A new input was that the Sultan should not have taken upon himself to interpret the constitution like what he did in his press statement of Feb 5 that considered the posts of mentri besar and his exco vacant if they refused to resign. Interpretation of the constitution should be left to the court. Another point was that as a constitutional monarch, the Ruler was duty bound to take advice only from his mentri besar – not any other including then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The bulwark of the Appellant’s case, as submitted in the lower courts, remains that the Sultan is not empowered under the constitution to dismiss a mentri besar, and that only the assembly, through a vote of confidence, can dismiss him. The Appellant also hammered home the point that the Court of Appeal’s rejection of Nizar as the rightful MB was flawed in that it had failed to take cognizance of the fundamental findings of High Court judge Aziz Rahim.
And the Respondent continues to maintain its contention that BN had the support of the majority of assemblymen and that the Sultan is entitled to determine which party had the majority support, stressing that nothing in the Perak constitution stipulates that such determination of support must be made in the assembly floor.
AG Gani Patail said the Ruler had taken upon himself to determine who had the majority support. He said: “A press statement issued by the Perak ruler revealed this, where he was satisfied that BN had the majority, and therefore, Nizar’s post – despite his refusal to resign – was deemed vacant”.
Note how Gani avoided using the word “dismiss” on Nizar. In fact, none of Zambry’s lawyers or Appellate Court judges had claimed that the Ruler had the power to dismiss Nizar. They only claimed that Nizar’s post had become vacant.
But without Nizar resigning, how could the post become vacant, and how could the Ruler appoint another mentri besar? This is the mother of all questions that the judges must answer before any one can rule that Nizar has lost his post.
EXTREME TREATMENT AGAINST NIZAR UNJUSTIFIED
On reflection of the Respondent’s case, perhaps we should explore a new perspective. Let us ask: what has Nizar done to deserve such extra-ordinary treatment – his support being ascertained by the Ruler personally, ordered to resign immediately, failing which his post was “deemed vacant”? Had Nizar caused our democratic system of government to come to a dead end, which would have been the case if he had lost the majority support and yet clinging on to power by
a) failing to advise the Ruler to dissolve the assembly, and
b) refusing to subject himself to a vote of no confidence?
Did Nizar do any of these? No! In fact, he did the opposite. He repeatedly advised the Ruler to dissolve the assembly due to a stalemate, but was turned down. He wanted an emergency session of the legislature to resolve the stalemate; that was also turned down.
Since Nizar had committed none of the sins against the principles of democracy as enshrined in our constitution so to speak, what justification was there to subject him and his cabinet to such extreme treatment as described?
That begs these further questions: Why was the Ruler in such a hurry that he couldn’t wait for a short while to let the assembly meet to resolve the impasse? And why did he reject his mentri besar’s advice to dissolve the assembly when it was apparent that there was a political impasse – a classic case of instability which is always resolved by returning the mandate to the electorate? Granted that the Ruler has the discretionary power to withhold consent to a dissolution of legislature, but should a constitutional monarch exercise that power without accountability?
The time has come for our highest court to put things right. This is a rare opportunity for our judiciary to redeem its tattered image and for the judges to shine with their judicial integrity.
The stakes involved are so high and grave that whatever decisions they make, each and every one of the panel should have the courage and dignity to stand up for their views for which they must write their individual judgments, unlike the recent practice of hiding under a single judgment, claiming it to be unanimous decision.
Kim Quek
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Does Najib really understand economics?
10.11.2009
I bet not a few among the participants at the 21st Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Malaysia Implementation Council meeting were aghast when Prime Minister cum Finance Minister Najib Razak’s announced that Malaysia was aiming for a 9% annual GDP growth until 2020.
In an opening speech at the meeting held in the morning of Nov 9, Najib said:
“We aim to be a developed nation by the year 2020 and we are looking to more than double our per capita gross national income from US$7,000 (RM24,500) to at least US$17,000 by then in order to qualify as a high-income nation according to World Bank classifications.
“This would also mean that Malaysia has to grow its GDP by over nine 9% annually until the year 2020.” (Malaysian Insider, Nov 9.)
Playing with the totally unrealistic growth figure of 9% at a time when Malaysia and the world are still going through one of the worst recessions with no definite light at the end of tunnel yet did sound surreal indeed. More so, when Malaysia’s growth record in recent years have been anything but robust.
Obviously advised by his aides that his gung-ho expectation was way overboard, Najib scrambled to do damage control via a press conference several hours later when he denied having said 9%. He said: “I did not say nine per cent, I said around six per cent as nine is not realistic.”
But of course, Najib’s denial came too late, as several news media including Bernama and Star had already quoted him at nine per cent. Though these media dutifully replaced the figure of nine per cent by six per cent in their updated versions in the afternoon, some betrayed their clumsy amendment by retaining the incongruous per capita GDP growth from the current US$7,000 to US$17,000 in 2020.
If indeed Najib had quoted six per cent, then compounding US$7,000 at the increase of 6% per annum can only bring us to US$13,000 by 2020. Only when we compound it by 9% can we reach the figure of 17,000. Figures tell no lies. It was clearly a deliberate statement, not a typing error or a slip made when reading the speech.
So the big puzzle: How could a finance minister, who is supposed to be the economic czar of a country, make such an unforgivable blunder?
Granted that a man of Najib’s position is expected to rely on speech writers to lighten his works, but he should remain the master as policy formulator and decision maker, not a robot reading out speeches he could not fully comprehend.
Chairing over such an important meeting which deliberates the agenda of MSC Malaysia, which in Najib’s words, serves as “a foundation to build a world-class technology sector to kick start a vibrant Malaysian ICT industry”, I would expect Najib to be in full possession of a macro view of the nation’s economy, the direction it is going, and the specific role the budding ICT industry is playing in relation thereto. And central to all these is of course a realistic assessment of current and potential strength of our economy.
As finance minister, Najib is sitting at the apex commanding a vast bureaucracy of economic and financial experts and planners, and he should therefore be the best judge of our economic realities. In fact, he should be the first one to spot any gross irregularity in major economic figures. If he is a competent finance minister, he should be the final arbiter as to what growth figure to adapt for policy making purpose. Even allowing the fact that he is new to the job, he should at least be able to discern when a wildly unrealistic target is presented to him. Not to be able to sense that 9% growth is way out of the realm of the reasonable is a horrible admission of ineptitude.
Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to surmise that this could be a case of an economic novice writing out a speech which was read out by a boss equally ignorant of economics.
That may not be a far-fetched assumption, given that Najib’s premiership so far seem to have been one gigantic public relation exercise void of substance to create the impression of change when in fact nothing has been changed. Not in our hopelessly decadent institutions nor in our utter lack of rule of law.
Kim Quek
I bet not a few among the participants at the 21st Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Malaysia Implementation Council meeting were aghast when Prime Minister cum Finance Minister Najib Razak’s announced that Malaysia was aiming for a 9% annual GDP growth until 2020.
In an opening speech at the meeting held in the morning of Nov 9, Najib said:
“We aim to be a developed nation by the year 2020 and we are looking to more than double our per capita gross national income from US$7,000 (RM24,500) to at least US$17,000 by then in order to qualify as a high-income nation according to World Bank classifications.
“This would also mean that Malaysia has to grow its GDP by over nine 9% annually until the year 2020.” (Malaysian Insider, Nov 9.)
Playing with the totally unrealistic growth figure of 9% at a time when Malaysia and the world are still going through one of the worst recessions with no definite light at the end of tunnel yet did sound surreal indeed. More so, when Malaysia’s growth record in recent years have been anything but robust.
Obviously advised by his aides that his gung-ho expectation was way overboard, Najib scrambled to do damage control via a press conference several hours later when he denied having said 9%. He said: “I did not say nine per cent, I said around six per cent as nine is not realistic.”
But of course, Najib’s denial came too late, as several news media including Bernama and Star had already quoted him at nine per cent. Though these media dutifully replaced the figure of nine per cent by six per cent in their updated versions in the afternoon, some betrayed their clumsy amendment by retaining the incongruous per capita GDP growth from the current US$7,000 to US$17,000 in 2020.
If indeed Najib had quoted six per cent, then compounding US$7,000 at the increase of 6% per annum can only bring us to US$13,000 by 2020. Only when we compound it by 9% can we reach the figure of 17,000. Figures tell no lies. It was clearly a deliberate statement, not a typing error or a slip made when reading the speech.
So the big puzzle: How could a finance minister, who is supposed to be the economic czar of a country, make such an unforgivable blunder?
Granted that a man of Najib’s position is expected to rely on speech writers to lighten his works, but he should remain the master as policy formulator and decision maker, not a robot reading out speeches he could not fully comprehend.
Chairing over such an important meeting which deliberates the agenda of MSC Malaysia, which in Najib’s words, serves as “a foundation to build a world-class technology sector to kick start a vibrant Malaysian ICT industry”, I would expect Najib to be in full possession of a macro view of the nation’s economy, the direction it is going, and the specific role the budding ICT industry is playing in relation thereto. And central to all these is of course a realistic assessment of current and potential strength of our economy.
As finance minister, Najib is sitting at the apex commanding a vast bureaucracy of economic and financial experts and planners, and he should therefore be the best judge of our economic realities. In fact, he should be the first one to spot any gross irregularity in major economic figures. If he is a competent finance minister, he should be the final arbiter as to what growth figure to adapt for policy making purpose. Even allowing the fact that he is new to the job, he should at least be able to discern when a wildly unrealistic target is presented to him. Not to be able to sense that 9% growth is way out of the realm of the reasonable is a horrible admission of ineptitude.
Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to surmise that this could be a case of an economic novice writing out a speech which was read out by a boss equally ignorant of economics.
That may not be a far-fetched assumption, given that Najib’s premiership so far seem to have been one gigantic public relation exercise void of substance to create the impression of change when in fact nothing has been changed. Not in our hopelessly decadent institutions nor in our utter lack of rule of law.
Kim Quek
Friday, October 30, 2009
Perak turned into a barbaric state
30.10.2009
After the nonsensical assembly sitting in Perak on Oct 28, Barisan Nasional should deeply reflect whether it is worthwhile to prolong its farcical rule in the Silver State.
To say the least, the session was a complete wash out.
First, police control and intervention inside and outside the assembly was so heavy and so overpowering that it has completely destroyed the image of our legislature as independent and the highest institution in our system of government.
Second, the slipshod manner with which BN’s budget motion was rushed through makes us wonder whether the budget was legally approved.
Let us start with the budget approval.
BN’s Mentri Besar Zambry Kadir started his budget speech at 1120 hrs, and thirty minutes later, he had not only completed his speech, but had moved his budget motion through three readings. Each time, the reading was approved by the BN assemblymen present, under vocal protests from Pakatan assemblymen. There was no debate and no one seemed to have heard any detailed figures – if figures were read out then, these were not carried in many newspapers the next day anyway. Pakatan assemblymen walked off the assembly immediately after the approval of the third reading.
A budget proposal is a statement of revenues and expenditures as well as major policies that encompass the entire government which is made up of many departments. So, it is normally a lengthy speech, followed by debates that take place during each of the first, second and third readings. It is hence a real marvel how the assembly could have compressed such elaborate process of proposal, deliberation and decision in all the three stages in the short interval of half an hour.
Through such gun-shot approval, the voices of the people who speak through their representatives are muted. Isn’t this a mockery of our democratic process and betrayal of the trust of the people?
Can we then call the budget legally approved?
Speaker illegal?
On top of that is the questionable legality of Ganesan’s position as speaker. His election as speaker on May 7 was deemed fraudulet, as the assembly session on that day was so chaotic and violent that it was not possible to conduct any business except the delivery of the opening speech by the Regent. Compounding this now is Ganesan’s breach of the Perak Constitution Article 36 A (5) which stipulates that a speaker must relinquish his private practice immediately or in any case not later than three months after his appointment, failing which he shall be disqualified. So, even if Ganesan’s appointment on May 7 was legal (which is not at all the case), he was already disqualified on Aug 7.
With an illegal speaker presiding in the assembly, can any business be conducted legally, least of all the all important agenda of the state budget approval?
Without an approved budget, wouldn’t the BN-controlled government machinery be spending money illegally?
No doubt, BN may be least worried about matters of illegality, confident of its iron-grip on the entire government machinery to serve its parochial interests. After all, isn’t BN Mentri Besar Zambry, who was appointed while incumbent Mentri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin was still serving, also illegal if only the courts have been upholding the constitution? Isn’t the entire state cabinet, which was selected by Zambry, also illegal?
But can BN afford the massive loss of popular support every time the police manhandle and bully elected representatives from the opposing camp or judges dishing out blatantly unconstitutional rulings?
Barbaric police intervention
Take the ridiculous scenario of the Perak assembly of Oct 28. The entire assembly compound was turned into a virtual war zone, with the entrance being protected by the kind of barbed wire seen only in war time. Hundreds of policemen and a riot squad who had been milling inside and outside the building manned the five check points stretching from the gate to the door of the assembly hall. Pakatan assemblymen complained of harassment every inch of their way. They were subjected to the humiliation of a body search and metal scan and their personal effects of hand phones, lap-tops, cameras etc being forcibly removed before they entered the hall.
On his way to the assembly hall, Speaker Sivakumar was lured to an area not visible to reporters and the public where he was pounced upon by scores of police personnel who forcibly disrobed him. In the melee, he was punched and strangulated with an arm lock, and his colleagues roughed up for trying to protect him.
Pray, where in the world can you see such barbaric act? Not even in the pariah state of Zimbabwe!
The picture inside the assembly hall is not any prettier. Scores of police personnel were there to man the entire assembly, with twenty of them forming a protective wall in front of the BN speaker Ganesan. And video cameras were transmitting live the activities of Pakatan assemblymen to the state police headquarters and the national headquarters at Bukit Aman, according to a Malaysiakini report.
Now, isn’t this the ultimate humiliation and insult to the highest and the most sanctimonious institution of a democracy, with the police contemptuously treating our Pakatan law makers as a bunch of criminals?
BN must make up its mind once and for all. Does it still want to put up the pretence that Malaysia is a democracy? If it does, should it continue to bombard our senses with such disgusting scenes and bare to the world the ugly truth of what Malaysia truly is?
Kim Quek
After the nonsensical assembly sitting in Perak on Oct 28, Barisan Nasional should deeply reflect whether it is worthwhile to prolong its farcical rule in the Silver State.
To say the least, the session was a complete wash out.
First, police control and intervention inside and outside the assembly was so heavy and so overpowering that it has completely destroyed the image of our legislature as independent and the highest institution in our system of government.
Second, the slipshod manner with which BN’s budget motion was rushed through makes us wonder whether the budget was legally approved.
Let us start with the budget approval.
BN’s Mentri Besar Zambry Kadir started his budget speech at 1120 hrs, and thirty minutes later, he had not only completed his speech, but had moved his budget motion through three readings. Each time, the reading was approved by the BN assemblymen present, under vocal protests from Pakatan assemblymen. There was no debate and no one seemed to have heard any detailed figures – if figures were read out then, these were not carried in many newspapers the next day anyway. Pakatan assemblymen walked off the assembly immediately after the approval of the third reading.
A budget proposal is a statement of revenues and expenditures as well as major policies that encompass the entire government which is made up of many departments. So, it is normally a lengthy speech, followed by debates that take place during each of the first, second and third readings. It is hence a real marvel how the assembly could have compressed such elaborate process of proposal, deliberation and decision in all the three stages in the short interval of half an hour.
Through such gun-shot approval, the voices of the people who speak through their representatives are muted. Isn’t this a mockery of our democratic process and betrayal of the trust of the people?
Can we then call the budget legally approved?
Speaker illegal?
On top of that is the questionable legality of Ganesan’s position as speaker. His election as speaker on May 7 was deemed fraudulet, as the assembly session on that day was so chaotic and violent that it was not possible to conduct any business except the delivery of the opening speech by the Regent. Compounding this now is Ganesan’s breach of the Perak Constitution Article 36 A (5) which stipulates that a speaker must relinquish his private practice immediately or in any case not later than three months after his appointment, failing which he shall be disqualified. So, even if Ganesan’s appointment on May 7 was legal (which is not at all the case), he was already disqualified on Aug 7.
With an illegal speaker presiding in the assembly, can any business be conducted legally, least of all the all important agenda of the state budget approval?
Without an approved budget, wouldn’t the BN-controlled government machinery be spending money illegally?
No doubt, BN may be least worried about matters of illegality, confident of its iron-grip on the entire government machinery to serve its parochial interests. After all, isn’t BN Mentri Besar Zambry, who was appointed while incumbent Mentri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin was still serving, also illegal if only the courts have been upholding the constitution? Isn’t the entire state cabinet, which was selected by Zambry, also illegal?
But can BN afford the massive loss of popular support every time the police manhandle and bully elected representatives from the opposing camp or judges dishing out blatantly unconstitutional rulings?
Barbaric police intervention
Take the ridiculous scenario of the Perak assembly of Oct 28. The entire assembly compound was turned into a virtual war zone, with the entrance being protected by the kind of barbed wire seen only in war time. Hundreds of policemen and a riot squad who had been milling inside and outside the building manned the five check points stretching from the gate to the door of the assembly hall. Pakatan assemblymen complained of harassment every inch of their way. They were subjected to the humiliation of a body search and metal scan and their personal effects of hand phones, lap-tops, cameras etc being forcibly removed before they entered the hall.
On his way to the assembly hall, Speaker Sivakumar was lured to an area not visible to reporters and the public where he was pounced upon by scores of police personnel who forcibly disrobed him. In the melee, he was punched and strangulated with an arm lock, and his colleagues roughed up for trying to protect him.
Pray, where in the world can you see such barbaric act? Not even in the pariah state of Zimbabwe!
The picture inside the assembly hall is not any prettier. Scores of police personnel were there to man the entire assembly, with twenty of them forming a protective wall in front of the BN speaker Ganesan. And video cameras were transmitting live the activities of Pakatan assemblymen to the state police headquarters and the national headquarters at Bukit Aman, according to a Malaysiakini report.
Now, isn’t this the ultimate humiliation and insult to the highest and the most sanctimonious institution of a democracy, with the police contemptuously treating our Pakatan law makers as a bunch of criminals?
BN must make up its mind once and for all. Does it still want to put up the pretence that Malaysia is a democracy? If it does, should it continue to bombard our senses with such disgusting scenes and bare to the world the ugly truth of what Malaysia truly is?
Kim Quek
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Judge slapping his own face
A tragic yet hilarious court proceeding took place in the Ipoh high court on Sept 8 when the judge blatantly contradicts himself in dismissing a suit brought by Perak’s Pakatan Rakyat speaker against the state’s Barisan Nasional speaker (yes, two speakers in the Perak assembly).
Judge Azahar Mohamed rejected V Sivakumar’s suit to seek damages from R Ganesan for assault and false imprisonment during the chaotic and violent state assembly sitting on May 7. He said the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case due to Federal Constitution Article 72 stipulating that “the validity of any proceeding in any state assembly cannot be questioned in any court”.
And yet in the same breath he declared that “the decision of the legislative assembly to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009.”
Now, the crux of the entire contention between the two speakers is: who is on the right side of law in the violent tussle for the speaker’s chair on May 7? By declaring Ganesan as the rightful speaker, Judge Azahar is in fact making a legal judgment. Is that not a breach of Article 72? How come he has no jurisdiction to hear Sivakumar’s grievances but has jurisdiction to judge Ganesan as legal speaker? Is that not a contradiction of the highest order?
Apart from this atrocious double standard applied by the judge, the main flaw of the judgment is the inability to differentiate between assembly proceeding and criminal behaviour. What Sivakumar is seeking is redress for the unlawful physical violence inflicted on him. And Article 72 covers only businesses conducted in the assembly – not unlawful and criminal act.
Judge Azahar has therefore wrongly used Article 72 to come to his judgment. To make it very clear that this is the case, I will quote in full the relevant clauses in Article 72 (Clauses 1 & 2) and explain the reasons why.
Clause 1: “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.”
Clause 2: “No body shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.”
Note the operative words “proceedings” in Clause 1 and “anything said or any vote given” in Clause 2. It is abundantly clear what Article 72 refers to are the speeches and resolutions made in the assembly, not any criminal or unlawful act.
But what happened on May 7 was complete pandemonium and chaos in the assembly hall. There was no chance to conduct any business at all, least of all any resolution passed. In fact the only business done on that day was the address by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah.
And how was Sivakumar “replaced” by Ganesan during that pandemonium?
While Sivakumar was sitting in the speaker’s chair, hordes of police personnel entered the assembly hall, allegedly on Ganesan’s order, and physically lifted, carried, dragged and moved speaker Sivakumar into a room where he was forcibly detained until the assembly sitting was over. And as soon as Sivakumar was removed from the hall, police personnel escorted Ganesan into the hall and ushered him to the speaker’s chair, with police personnel making a line to stand guard in front of Ganesan to prevent any assemblymen from reaching the speaker’s chair.
The entire tragedy-comedy was stage-managed by the police, and it is therefore more appropriate to say that while Sivakumar was elected by the assembly through a reolution, Ganesan was physically planted into the speaker’s chair by the police. And that about sums up what happened on that tragic-hilarious day.
And since Judge Azahar appears to be so respectful of the constitutional principle of separation of power as demonstrated by his professed adherence to Article 72, is it not puzzling that he should have chosen to ignore completely the heinous violation of the doctrine of separation of power when hordes of police personnel invaded the assembly to physically replace one speaker with another? Is it not another shining example of double standard in the Malaysia Boleh tradition?
After the series of judicial decisions that appear to wantonly trample the constitution and the law following the shameful power grab in Perak, the latest low represented by Azahar’s decision makes us wonder how much lower our judiciary can sink into, as many more judicial decisions in the same series are still pending.
Kim Quek
Judge Azahar Mohamed rejected V Sivakumar’s suit to seek damages from R Ganesan for assault and false imprisonment during the chaotic and violent state assembly sitting on May 7. He said the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case due to Federal Constitution Article 72 stipulating that “the validity of any proceeding in any state assembly cannot be questioned in any court”.
And yet in the same breath he declared that “the decision of the legislative assembly to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009.”
Now, the crux of the entire contention between the two speakers is: who is on the right side of law in the violent tussle for the speaker’s chair on May 7? By declaring Ganesan as the rightful speaker, Judge Azahar is in fact making a legal judgment. Is that not a breach of Article 72? How come he has no jurisdiction to hear Sivakumar’s grievances but has jurisdiction to judge Ganesan as legal speaker? Is that not a contradiction of the highest order?
Apart from this atrocious double standard applied by the judge, the main flaw of the judgment is the inability to differentiate between assembly proceeding and criminal behaviour. What Sivakumar is seeking is redress for the unlawful physical violence inflicted on him. And Article 72 covers only businesses conducted in the assembly – not unlawful and criminal act.
Judge Azahar has therefore wrongly used Article 72 to come to his judgment. To make it very clear that this is the case, I will quote in full the relevant clauses in Article 72 (Clauses 1 & 2) and explain the reasons why.
Clause 1: “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.”
Clause 2: “No body shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.”
Note the operative words “proceedings” in Clause 1 and “anything said or any vote given” in Clause 2. It is abundantly clear what Article 72 refers to are the speeches and resolutions made in the assembly, not any criminal or unlawful act.
But what happened on May 7 was complete pandemonium and chaos in the assembly hall. There was no chance to conduct any business at all, least of all any resolution passed. In fact the only business done on that day was the address by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah.
And how was Sivakumar “replaced” by Ganesan during that pandemonium?
While Sivakumar was sitting in the speaker’s chair, hordes of police personnel entered the assembly hall, allegedly on Ganesan’s order, and physically lifted, carried, dragged and moved speaker Sivakumar into a room where he was forcibly detained until the assembly sitting was over. And as soon as Sivakumar was removed from the hall, police personnel escorted Ganesan into the hall and ushered him to the speaker’s chair, with police personnel making a line to stand guard in front of Ganesan to prevent any assemblymen from reaching the speaker’s chair.
The entire tragedy-comedy was stage-managed by the police, and it is therefore more appropriate to say that while Sivakumar was elected by the assembly through a reolution, Ganesan was physically planted into the speaker’s chair by the police. And that about sums up what happened on that tragic-hilarious day.
And since Judge Azahar appears to be so respectful of the constitutional principle of separation of power as demonstrated by his professed adherence to Article 72, is it not puzzling that he should have chosen to ignore completely the heinous violation of the doctrine of separation of power when hordes of police personnel invaded the assembly to physically replace one speaker with another? Is it not another shining example of double standard in the Malaysia Boleh tradition?
After the series of judicial decisions that appear to wantonly trample the constitution and the law following the shameful power grab in Perak, the latest low represented by Azahar’s decision makes us wonder how much lower our judiciary can sink into, as many more judicial decisions in the same series are still pending.
Kim Quek
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Dark clouds over the IGP - will the Agong step in?
06.09.2009
How should one read Prime Minister Najib Razak’s decision to renew Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan’s service contract despite his horrible records – exploding crime rates, brutal suppression of civil liberties and swirling talks of his alleged links with the underworld?
Some would say that the IGP is retained because, as a ruthless suppressor of human rights, he is exactly the kind of police head needed to prop up the wobbling UMNO led regime that is fast loosing popular support. As Musa’s credentials for this role were well demonstrated in the infamous power grab in Perak. Brushing the Constitution and law aside, police brute force was repeatedly employed to physically bar and rough up Pakatan assemblymen from exercising their constitutional rights to regain their legitimacy to rule from the illegitimately established BN state government.
Others would say that Najib is in no position to get rid of Musa as the latter has the upper hand, being holder of the darkest secrets pertaining to major scandals that have been heavily weighing down on Najib, such as the Altantuya murder and the Scorpene submarine purchase.
Some would even suggest that Musa’s hitherto pivotal role in the on-going dubious Anwar sodomy trial II makes him indispensable to the continuing potency of this case as a potential lethal weapon against the seemingly unstoppable advances of Pakatan Rakyat.
For those who have been paying attention to the local political scene, it is not difficult to see that all the above three views are valid. In other words, it is the combination of expediency for political survival and the personal vulnerability of the Prime Minister that has contributed to another extension to the already extended term of two year for the hugely unpopular police head.
Musa’s extension of service also signifies that there will be no light at the end of tunnel of promised reforms as hyped in Najib’s 1Malaysia euphoria. Between an inclusive democratic Malaysia and a race-supremacist authoritarian Malaysia, the Najib led UMNO has obviously chosen the latter.
FRIGHTENING DETERIORATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY
Politics aside, what concerns the men-in-the-street is the frightening deterioration of security and law and order in the country. A recent opinion poll conducted in the Home Ministry website reveals that 97% of respondents expressed worry over the state of public safety, 94% were of the opinion that the authorities had not done their best and a shocking two third said they or their immediate family members had been victims of crimes. These alarming polling results are in tandem with the fact that crimes have escalated exponentially during Musa’s tenure as the IGP.
Why has crime rate continued to spiral uncontrollably despite the billions of ringgit poured into the police to upgrade facilities and expand manpower following the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry to upgrade the police force in 2005? Why has rampant corruption and persistent abuse of power and violation of human rights continue to bug our police force with increasing tenacity? Why have the police continued to resist the implementation of the crown jewel of the Royal Commission’s 125 recommendations – the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission, which by consensus, would have been the most potent medicine to whip our decadent police force into shape?
In all these failures, we see the shadow of IGP Musa Hassan. It is therefore with the utmost indignation that we must deplore the Najib leadership for refusing to react to the alarm bells sounded in Malaysia Today website in the past week, where explicit details of Musa Hassan’s alleged links to the underworld were exposed.
EXPLOSIVE REVELATIONS
In a series of postings, Malaysia Today’s Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) displayed photocopies of statutory declaration and correspondence among key players to substantiate the allegations of Musa’s involvement. These allegations included: the IGP allowing an underworld kingpin to manipulate postings of officers while siding another to secure his release.
In a posting on Aug 28, RPK revealed a statutory declaration made by a former aide de camp (ADC) of Inspector General Musa Hassan, where the ADC accused the IGP of misconduct that “undermined the integrity and credibility of PDRM , constituting a betrayal of his oath of office”. Certain names and details were blacked out in the documents for “obvious reasons”, but RPK promised that the ‘un-blacked’ out version would be revealed if its authenticity was challenged by the government or when Musa’s service was extended so as to embarrass the government.
Specifically, the ADC alleged that
• As ADC, he compiled and coordinated posting orders as based on a draft and proposal made by BK Tan. A list of the postings as implemented was attached to the Affidavit.
• Some transfers were made as “entrapment’, others with short notices were made as punishment to convey the impression of eradicating corruption and abuses, though “it was furthest from the truth”.
• He verified that the statutory declarations of certain police officers (name given) alleging manipulation of “promotions, ranks and postings in the hierarchy of PDRM” by BK Tan were true. (These statutory declarations appeared earlier in Malaysia Today).
• Six police officers who exposed Musa’s alleged underworld links were charged for various offenses.
• A former CID Director (name given) informed him that it was Musa who gave the order to set up a covert blog to make allegation of corruption against former Deputy Minister of Home Security Johari Baharom. (In 2007. Johari, a known adversary to Musa, was accused in an anonymous blog of accepting RM 5.5 million bribe to free three underworld bigwigs, but Johari was subsequently cleared of this allegation)
In another posting on the same day, Aug 28, RPK revealed a letter dated 29 Aug 2007 from Johari Baharom to his former boss, Abdullah Badawi who was then Prime Minister cum Home Security, where Musa’s link with Goh Cheng Poh was unveiled. Goh Cheng Poh was nabbed in an anti-Ah Long operation and banished to restricted residence (RR) in Jeli, Kelantan, under the direction of a task force headed by Johari. Goh then made a habeas corpus application to the court on 14 Aug 2007 to set aside the RR order on ground of male fide detention. In Johari’s letter to Abdullah, he described details of how Musa, in conjunction with the attorney general (AG), took unprecedented legal steps to help Goh to win his case. (Following this suit, AG ordered Goh’s release.)
WILL AGONG STEP IN?
In any democracy, these explosive exposures would have rocked the government. Even in the pseudo democracy of Malaysia, surely these allegations are serious enough to merit a proper investigation, particularly when these occurred on the eve of the re-appointment of such a controversial figure who commands no public confidence.
But our government has remained silent. And what has Musa got to say to these allegations when contacted? He refused to comment, according to Malaysiakini which reported these revelations on Aug 29.
However, all is not lost as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is empowered under Article 140 (5) of the Constitution to refer the Police Force Commission’s recommendation back to the Commission for another round of consideration. Until the Agong signs on the letter of appointment which should take effect on Sept 13, the Agong can still ask the Commission to deliberate further, pending a proper investigation to clear up the dark clouds hanging over the IGP.
The issue of the caliber and integrity of the next IGP is of vital importance at this critical junction of our history in view of the chaotic state of the rule of law the nation has descended into. And we trust that the Agong will give this matter his due consideration.
Kim Quek
How should one read Prime Minister Najib Razak’s decision to renew Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan’s service contract despite his horrible records – exploding crime rates, brutal suppression of civil liberties and swirling talks of his alleged links with the underworld?
Some would say that the IGP is retained because, as a ruthless suppressor of human rights, he is exactly the kind of police head needed to prop up the wobbling UMNO led regime that is fast loosing popular support. As Musa’s credentials for this role were well demonstrated in the infamous power grab in Perak. Brushing the Constitution and law aside, police brute force was repeatedly employed to physically bar and rough up Pakatan assemblymen from exercising their constitutional rights to regain their legitimacy to rule from the illegitimately established BN state government.
Others would say that Najib is in no position to get rid of Musa as the latter has the upper hand, being holder of the darkest secrets pertaining to major scandals that have been heavily weighing down on Najib, such as the Altantuya murder and the Scorpene submarine purchase.
Some would even suggest that Musa’s hitherto pivotal role in the on-going dubious Anwar sodomy trial II makes him indispensable to the continuing potency of this case as a potential lethal weapon against the seemingly unstoppable advances of Pakatan Rakyat.
For those who have been paying attention to the local political scene, it is not difficult to see that all the above three views are valid. In other words, it is the combination of expediency for political survival and the personal vulnerability of the Prime Minister that has contributed to another extension to the already extended term of two year for the hugely unpopular police head.
Musa’s extension of service also signifies that there will be no light at the end of tunnel of promised reforms as hyped in Najib’s 1Malaysia euphoria. Between an inclusive democratic Malaysia and a race-supremacist authoritarian Malaysia, the Najib led UMNO has obviously chosen the latter.
FRIGHTENING DETERIORATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY
Politics aside, what concerns the men-in-the-street is the frightening deterioration of security and law and order in the country. A recent opinion poll conducted in the Home Ministry website reveals that 97% of respondents expressed worry over the state of public safety, 94% were of the opinion that the authorities had not done their best and a shocking two third said they or their immediate family members had been victims of crimes. These alarming polling results are in tandem with the fact that crimes have escalated exponentially during Musa’s tenure as the IGP.
Why has crime rate continued to spiral uncontrollably despite the billions of ringgit poured into the police to upgrade facilities and expand manpower following the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry to upgrade the police force in 2005? Why has rampant corruption and persistent abuse of power and violation of human rights continue to bug our police force with increasing tenacity? Why have the police continued to resist the implementation of the crown jewel of the Royal Commission’s 125 recommendations – the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission, which by consensus, would have been the most potent medicine to whip our decadent police force into shape?
In all these failures, we see the shadow of IGP Musa Hassan. It is therefore with the utmost indignation that we must deplore the Najib leadership for refusing to react to the alarm bells sounded in Malaysia Today website in the past week, where explicit details of Musa Hassan’s alleged links to the underworld were exposed.
EXPLOSIVE REVELATIONS
In a series of postings, Malaysia Today’s Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) displayed photocopies of statutory declaration and correspondence among key players to substantiate the allegations of Musa’s involvement. These allegations included: the IGP allowing an underworld kingpin to manipulate postings of officers while siding another to secure his release.
In a posting on Aug 28, RPK revealed a statutory declaration made by a former aide de camp (ADC) of Inspector General Musa Hassan, where the ADC accused the IGP of misconduct that “undermined the integrity and credibility of PDRM , constituting a betrayal of his oath of office”. Certain names and details were blacked out in the documents for “obvious reasons”, but RPK promised that the ‘un-blacked’ out version would be revealed if its authenticity was challenged by the government or when Musa’s service was extended so as to embarrass the government.
Specifically, the ADC alleged that
• As ADC, he compiled and coordinated posting orders as based on a draft and proposal made by BK Tan. A list of the postings as implemented was attached to the Affidavit.
• Some transfers were made as “entrapment’, others with short notices were made as punishment to convey the impression of eradicating corruption and abuses, though “it was furthest from the truth”.
• He verified that the statutory declarations of certain police officers (name given) alleging manipulation of “promotions, ranks and postings in the hierarchy of PDRM” by BK Tan were true. (These statutory declarations appeared earlier in Malaysia Today).
• Six police officers who exposed Musa’s alleged underworld links were charged for various offenses.
• A former CID Director (name given) informed him that it was Musa who gave the order to set up a covert blog to make allegation of corruption against former Deputy Minister of Home Security Johari Baharom. (In 2007. Johari, a known adversary to Musa, was accused in an anonymous blog of accepting RM 5.5 million bribe to free three underworld bigwigs, but Johari was subsequently cleared of this allegation)
In another posting on the same day, Aug 28, RPK revealed a letter dated 29 Aug 2007 from Johari Baharom to his former boss, Abdullah Badawi who was then Prime Minister cum Home Security, where Musa’s link with Goh Cheng Poh was unveiled. Goh Cheng Poh was nabbed in an anti-Ah Long operation and banished to restricted residence (RR) in Jeli, Kelantan, under the direction of a task force headed by Johari. Goh then made a habeas corpus application to the court on 14 Aug 2007 to set aside the RR order on ground of male fide detention. In Johari’s letter to Abdullah, he described details of how Musa, in conjunction with the attorney general (AG), took unprecedented legal steps to help Goh to win his case. (Following this suit, AG ordered Goh’s release.)
WILL AGONG STEP IN?
In any democracy, these explosive exposures would have rocked the government. Even in the pseudo democracy of Malaysia, surely these allegations are serious enough to merit a proper investigation, particularly when these occurred on the eve of the re-appointment of such a controversial figure who commands no public confidence.
But our government has remained silent. And what has Musa got to say to these allegations when contacted? He refused to comment, according to Malaysiakini which reported these revelations on Aug 29.
However, all is not lost as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is empowered under Article 140 (5) of the Constitution to refer the Police Force Commission’s recommendation back to the Commission for another round of consideration. Until the Agong signs on the letter of appointment which should take effect on Sept 13, the Agong can still ask the Commission to deliberate further, pending a proper investigation to clear up the dark clouds hanging over the IGP.
The issue of the caliber and integrity of the next IGP is of vital importance at this critical junction of our history in view of the chaotic state of the rule of law the nation has descended into. And we trust that the Agong will give this matter his due consideration.
Kim Quek
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Najib's 1Malaysia a two-faced scam?
Najib’s 1Malaysia a two-faced scam?
10.08.2009
Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has claimed that he does not understand what ‘1Malaysia’ stands for and suggested his ‘Malaysia Boleh’ is a better slogan. I can’t help but agree with him that ‘Malaysia Boleh’ perhaps better describes some of the grotesque idiosyncrasies of Malaysian life, at least over the following two scenarios which were spectacularly contradictory to each other:
Scenario 1: Prime Minister Najib Razak’s wife Rosmah Mansor put up a stellar performance in a charity dinner that helped to raise RM 2.3 million for a Chinese primary school in Segambut, Kuala Lumpur on Aug 6. Rosmah not only serenaded the audience with a popular Mandarin song (which alone netted RM 200,000), her group of ministers’ wives gave rendition to four songs each in a different language - Mandarin, English, Malay and Tamil - to give full expressions to her husband’s ‘lMalaysia’ motto. She heaped praise on the Chinese community for their unfailing generosity to support Chinese education and urged other communities to follow suit in the spirit of ‘1Malaysia’.
Scenario 2: Almost at the same, mass circulated Malay paper Utusan Malaysia, which is UMNO’s mouthpiece, spat racial fire through an incendiary article. Writing under the title ‘Melayu jangan jadi bacul’ (Malays, don’t be cowards) on Aug 4, journalist Noor Azam accused the Chinese and Indians of wanting to “destroy Malay political power held by UMNO since independence” with the help of Anwar Ibrahim and PAS. This supposed power grab was pursued with Chinese-dominated DAP manipulating the Malay leaders in Pakatan Rakyat. The writer further claimed that “The attacks and the hatred shown by the opposition and Chinese and Indian political activists towards the Malays have worsened”. To goad the Malays into action, he even went to the extent of calling them ‘cowards’, saying “The Malay race has become stupid cowards, and people who are cowards will die before even their deaths.”
Such bare-faced incitement of racial hatred and racial clash should have landed the writer in lock-up and the newspaper’s licence revoked under Malaysia’s repressive laws, particularly if they are on the other side of the political divide, but Noor Azam and Utusan Malaysia not only escaped untouched, but had the honour of being defended by none other than the UMNO’s Deputy President and Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin who ridiculously and inexplicably blamed the opposition for causing such heightening of racial temperature. That Noor’s racist blast bears the stamp of UMNO’s policy is unmistakable.
DOUBLE-FACED POLITICS
Observers of political development following Najib’s ascension to power could not fail to recognize that these two conflicting scenarios are by no means isolated. In fact they are each a clog in a continuous chain of events moving in diagonally opposite directions. While the top husband and wife team are merrily singing their idyllic songs of racial harmony and dishing out goodies day in and day out, their party’s propaganda machines are regularly spewing racist poison to rile up the majority race against the minorities. UMNO has partially got away with this double-faced game, because it has complete control over the local media (other than the Internet), and the two conflicting tunes are played separately to two different audiences in their respective media, with each largely oblivious of what the other has learned. For example, news in the nature of Scenario 1 is never carried in the Malay press so that UMNO can throw some bait to Chinese voters without risking the displeasure of Malays, while it incites Malay sentiments against other races only through the Malay press which is not commonly read by the Chinese.
The objectives of this two-pronged strategy are obvious. Strategy 1 (Scenario 1) is meant to coax the return of Chinese and Indian votes which had exited the BN pen in a mass exodus in the 8 Mar 08 elections. And Strategy 2 (Scenario 2) is geared towards splitting the opposition and re-uniting the Malay electorate under the UMNO canopy by appealing to the primordial instincts of race and religion through pressing the panic buttons of lies and deceit, of which the nonsense of Scenario 2 is typical. The over-arching aim is of course an electoral victory in the next elections – at all costs including inflaming racial and religious clashes.
This explains why Najib’s new measures are mostly ad hoc, piecemeal, populist and election-centred – every move calculated for electoral gains.
There is a conspicuous absence of serious policy initiatives to regain national cohesiveness from the present chaotic political and racial fragmentations through legislative and institutional reforms to restore full justice and equality to all citizens regardless of race, religion and political affiliation as guaranteed under the Constitution. Neither is there any long term planning to re-invigorate the economy through fundamental policy changes in economy, education and public service. But how could UMNO achieve any of these when it refuses to give up racism, corruption and elitism as mainstay of UMNO’s political sustenance?
REVIVAL OF REPRESSION
In fact, Najib’s pursuit of this Jekyll and Hyde political game under the charade of his ‘1Malaysia’ slogan is a clear signal that UMNO has given up its earlier token attempt under former premier Abdullah Badawi to institute reforms in the aftermath of its punishing set back in the 8 Mar 08 elections. In its place are tokenism and public relation exercises and image-polishing to spruce up the façade of reforms and harmony, for which the government would spare no costs. Whereas in substance, the Najib leadership has chosen the opposite course of renewed repression ala the Mahathir era. This has been amply illustrated in the series of lawless atrocities against its political opponents beginning from the infamous power grab in Perak, right through the death of Teoh Beng Hock under custody of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the brutal and reckless crackdown of the anti-ISA mass rally by the police on Aug 1.
Under these circumstances, the road ahead for Pakatan Rakyat to realize its dreams of reforms is tortuous and challenging indeed. Apart from having to constantly fend off politically motivated harassment from various law enforcement agencies which are invariably UMNO manipulated, it has to fight the awesome battle of winning the hearts and minds of the masses in the uneven battlefield where all mass media (safe the Internet) are deployed as instruments of propaganda for UMNO.
For this reason, Pakatan Rakyat cannot have the luxury of unrestrained freedom to engage in intra-party and inter-party dissensions through the public media without dooming its chances of unseating the incumbent power. All parochial party interests or personal ego must be subsumed to the coalition’s over-arching objective which is to bring genuine reforms to salvage the country from its present unrelenting decline.
As for the public at large, just as every citizen has his inalienable rights to life and liberty and equality under the Constitution, there is also the corollary obligation to each and every one to stand up and defend those rights. It is in this respect that those who are enlightened of the truth must do his part to disseminate that truth so that justice and truth will eventually prevail in this country.
Kim Quek
10.08.2009
Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has claimed that he does not understand what ‘1Malaysia’ stands for and suggested his ‘Malaysia Boleh’ is a better slogan. I can’t help but agree with him that ‘Malaysia Boleh’ perhaps better describes some of the grotesque idiosyncrasies of Malaysian life, at least over the following two scenarios which were spectacularly contradictory to each other:
Scenario 1: Prime Minister Najib Razak’s wife Rosmah Mansor put up a stellar performance in a charity dinner that helped to raise RM 2.3 million for a Chinese primary school in Segambut, Kuala Lumpur on Aug 6. Rosmah not only serenaded the audience with a popular Mandarin song (which alone netted RM 200,000), her group of ministers’ wives gave rendition to four songs each in a different language - Mandarin, English, Malay and Tamil - to give full expressions to her husband’s ‘lMalaysia’ motto. She heaped praise on the Chinese community for their unfailing generosity to support Chinese education and urged other communities to follow suit in the spirit of ‘1Malaysia’.
Scenario 2: Almost at the same, mass circulated Malay paper Utusan Malaysia, which is UMNO’s mouthpiece, spat racial fire through an incendiary article. Writing under the title ‘Melayu jangan jadi bacul’ (Malays, don’t be cowards) on Aug 4, journalist Noor Azam accused the Chinese and Indians of wanting to “destroy Malay political power held by UMNO since independence” with the help of Anwar Ibrahim and PAS. This supposed power grab was pursued with Chinese-dominated DAP manipulating the Malay leaders in Pakatan Rakyat. The writer further claimed that “The attacks and the hatred shown by the opposition and Chinese and Indian political activists towards the Malays have worsened”. To goad the Malays into action, he even went to the extent of calling them ‘cowards’, saying “The Malay race has become stupid cowards, and people who are cowards will die before even their deaths.”
Such bare-faced incitement of racial hatred and racial clash should have landed the writer in lock-up and the newspaper’s licence revoked under Malaysia’s repressive laws, particularly if they are on the other side of the political divide, but Noor Azam and Utusan Malaysia not only escaped untouched, but had the honour of being defended by none other than the UMNO’s Deputy President and Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin who ridiculously and inexplicably blamed the opposition for causing such heightening of racial temperature. That Noor’s racist blast bears the stamp of UMNO’s policy is unmistakable.
DOUBLE-FACED POLITICS
Observers of political development following Najib’s ascension to power could not fail to recognize that these two conflicting scenarios are by no means isolated. In fact they are each a clog in a continuous chain of events moving in diagonally opposite directions. While the top husband and wife team are merrily singing their idyllic songs of racial harmony and dishing out goodies day in and day out, their party’s propaganda machines are regularly spewing racist poison to rile up the majority race against the minorities. UMNO has partially got away with this double-faced game, because it has complete control over the local media (other than the Internet), and the two conflicting tunes are played separately to two different audiences in their respective media, with each largely oblivious of what the other has learned. For example, news in the nature of Scenario 1 is never carried in the Malay press so that UMNO can throw some bait to Chinese voters without risking the displeasure of Malays, while it incites Malay sentiments against other races only through the Malay press which is not commonly read by the Chinese.
The objectives of this two-pronged strategy are obvious. Strategy 1 (Scenario 1) is meant to coax the return of Chinese and Indian votes which had exited the BN pen in a mass exodus in the 8 Mar 08 elections. And Strategy 2 (Scenario 2) is geared towards splitting the opposition and re-uniting the Malay electorate under the UMNO canopy by appealing to the primordial instincts of race and religion through pressing the panic buttons of lies and deceit, of which the nonsense of Scenario 2 is typical. The over-arching aim is of course an electoral victory in the next elections – at all costs including inflaming racial and religious clashes.
This explains why Najib’s new measures are mostly ad hoc, piecemeal, populist and election-centred – every move calculated for electoral gains.
There is a conspicuous absence of serious policy initiatives to regain national cohesiveness from the present chaotic political and racial fragmentations through legislative and institutional reforms to restore full justice and equality to all citizens regardless of race, religion and political affiliation as guaranteed under the Constitution. Neither is there any long term planning to re-invigorate the economy through fundamental policy changes in economy, education and public service. But how could UMNO achieve any of these when it refuses to give up racism, corruption and elitism as mainstay of UMNO’s political sustenance?
REVIVAL OF REPRESSION
In fact, Najib’s pursuit of this Jekyll and Hyde political game under the charade of his ‘1Malaysia’ slogan is a clear signal that UMNO has given up its earlier token attempt under former premier Abdullah Badawi to institute reforms in the aftermath of its punishing set back in the 8 Mar 08 elections. In its place are tokenism and public relation exercises and image-polishing to spruce up the façade of reforms and harmony, for which the government would spare no costs. Whereas in substance, the Najib leadership has chosen the opposite course of renewed repression ala the Mahathir era. This has been amply illustrated in the series of lawless atrocities against its political opponents beginning from the infamous power grab in Perak, right through the death of Teoh Beng Hock under custody of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the brutal and reckless crackdown of the anti-ISA mass rally by the police on Aug 1.
Under these circumstances, the road ahead for Pakatan Rakyat to realize its dreams of reforms is tortuous and challenging indeed. Apart from having to constantly fend off politically motivated harassment from various law enforcement agencies which are invariably UMNO manipulated, it has to fight the awesome battle of winning the hearts and minds of the masses in the uneven battlefield where all mass media (safe the Internet) are deployed as instruments of propaganda for UMNO.
For this reason, Pakatan Rakyat cannot have the luxury of unrestrained freedom to engage in intra-party and inter-party dissensions through the public media without dooming its chances of unseating the incumbent power. All parochial party interests or personal ego must be subsumed to the coalition’s over-arching objective which is to bring genuine reforms to salvage the country from its present unrelenting decline.
As for the public at large, just as every citizen has his inalienable rights to life and liberty and equality under the Constitution, there is also the corollary obligation to each and every one to stand up and defend those rights. It is in this respect that those who are enlightened of the truth must do his part to disseminate that truth so that justice and truth will eventually prevail in this country.
Kim Quek
Friday, July 24, 2009
PM & AG's justification fo inquest laughable
Both Prime Minister Najib Razak and Attorney General (AG) Gani Patail have flopped miserably to justify the unjustifiable – the irrational and untenable decision to have both a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) and an inquest to deal with the boiling controversy of Teoh Beng Huat’s tragic death under custody of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
In an immediate response to nation-wide protests against the government’s decision to allow the RCI to deal with only procedural matters while leaving the all important issue of cause of death to an inquest in a magistrate court, Najib said:
“We must adhere to the laws of the country. Please don’t take (political) advantage of the case. Our intention is to find out the truth”.
Sensing his statement sounded somewhat hollow, he quickly added that the Attorney General will issue a statement to explain the details.
But the Attorney General statement sounded even more hollow. His statement is a blatant attempt to mislead by deliberate omission of the relevant section of the law.
Citing section 2 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, Gani said it made clear reference to the inquiry into the conduct and management of the government officers and departments for the public welfare. He said welfare matters relate to the well being of society and “cannot be overstretched to cover an inquiry into the death of this nature.”
In this statement, Gani made two assertions. First, the Act covers only government departments and officers. Second, his definition of “public welfare” excludes inquisition of death.
On Gani’s first point. Under the same section quoted by Gani – section 2 of the Act – it is expressly stated under item (d) that the Commission is empowered to inquire into “any other matter in which an inquiry would, in the opinion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, be for the public welfare, ….”. So, Gani’s assertion is directly contradicted by item (d). He is therefore guilty of a deliberate attempt to mislead the nation, as he cannot possibly be ignorant of this elementary and fundamental provision of the Act, being the highest legal adviser to the government.
On the second point. Gani’s narrow interpretation of the phrase “for the public welfare” is laughable. When the nation has been so incensed by the heinous injustice of this tragedy that it is almost on the point of revolt, appointing an RCI to probe into this death is not only legally and politically appropriate but the very minimum the government must do if it still wants to retain a remote semblance of rule of law in this country. And yet, our attorney general is telling us that making such a move is incompatible with “public welfare.” Then what will constitute “public welfare”? Waiting for violence to erupt in the streets – knowing fully well that public confidence in the existing law enforcement bodies including the courts is already non-existent?
Even when an RCI is commissioned to probe into the death, there is no assurance of justice done, judging from the government’s habit of ignoring recommendations of RCIs in recent times; but at least it will calm the highly strung nerves of the nation by showing that the government is finally taking steps in the right direction. And I can’t imagine any decent person will dispute by saying that taking such a course does not fulfil national interests as implied by Gani’s narrow interpretation.
Much has been written and expressed by respectable legal minds, political parties and civil society leaders that the present set up of an RCI cum inquest to divide the task of resolving the present crisis is legally and technically untenable and morally unacceptable, and I will not elaborate further in this direction.
Suffice to say that Najib must decide, and decide now, which course he wants to take. To salvage the image of the nation and redeem himself from a scandal-ridden past by appointing an honourably constituted RCI with proper terms of reference to take on the crisis, or relegate the task to a magistrate hamstrung by prosecutors and police, all of whom are deeply mistrusted by the public.
Kim Quek.
In an immediate response to nation-wide protests against the government’s decision to allow the RCI to deal with only procedural matters while leaving the all important issue of cause of death to an inquest in a magistrate court, Najib said:
“We must adhere to the laws of the country. Please don’t take (political) advantage of the case. Our intention is to find out the truth”.
Sensing his statement sounded somewhat hollow, he quickly added that the Attorney General will issue a statement to explain the details.
But the Attorney General statement sounded even more hollow. His statement is a blatant attempt to mislead by deliberate omission of the relevant section of the law.
Citing section 2 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, Gani said it made clear reference to the inquiry into the conduct and management of the government officers and departments for the public welfare. He said welfare matters relate to the well being of society and “cannot be overstretched to cover an inquiry into the death of this nature.”
In this statement, Gani made two assertions. First, the Act covers only government departments and officers. Second, his definition of “public welfare” excludes inquisition of death.
On Gani’s first point. Under the same section quoted by Gani – section 2 of the Act – it is expressly stated under item (d) that the Commission is empowered to inquire into “any other matter in which an inquiry would, in the opinion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, be for the public welfare, ….”. So, Gani’s assertion is directly contradicted by item (d). He is therefore guilty of a deliberate attempt to mislead the nation, as he cannot possibly be ignorant of this elementary and fundamental provision of the Act, being the highest legal adviser to the government.
On the second point. Gani’s narrow interpretation of the phrase “for the public welfare” is laughable. When the nation has been so incensed by the heinous injustice of this tragedy that it is almost on the point of revolt, appointing an RCI to probe into this death is not only legally and politically appropriate but the very minimum the government must do if it still wants to retain a remote semblance of rule of law in this country. And yet, our attorney general is telling us that making such a move is incompatible with “public welfare.” Then what will constitute “public welfare”? Waiting for violence to erupt in the streets – knowing fully well that public confidence in the existing law enforcement bodies including the courts is already non-existent?
Even when an RCI is commissioned to probe into the death, there is no assurance of justice done, judging from the government’s habit of ignoring recommendations of RCIs in recent times; but at least it will calm the highly strung nerves of the nation by showing that the government is finally taking steps in the right direction. And I can’t imagine any decent person will dispute by saying that taking such a course does not fulfil national interests as implied by Gani’s narrow interpretation.
Much has been written and expressed by respectable legal minds, political parties and civil society leaders that the present set up of an RCI cum inquest to divide the task of resolving the present crisis is legally and technically untenable and morally unacceptable, and I will not elaborate further in this direction.
Suffice to say that Najib must decide, and decide now, which course he wants to take. To salvage the image of the nation and redeem himself from a scandal-ridden past by appointing an honourably constituted RCI with proper terms of reference to take on the crisis, or relegate the task to a magistrate hamstrung by prosecutors and police, all of whom are deeply mistrusted by the public.
Kim Quek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
