26.04.26
Prime Minister Najib Razak might have won the electoral battle at Hulu Selangor, but he sure has taken a giant step of retreat in the defence of Putrajaya against the relentless advance of Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
The orgy of election bribery indulged over those few days leading up to polling day on April 25 would have put any other pseudo democracy to shame when comparing election excesses.
To induce votes, Najib and his colleagues made innumerable on-the-spot grant of cash and promises of goodies (many were conditional upon a Barisan Nasional win) that run easily to hundreds of million of ringgit during that compact campaign period. These include the construction of a university and several schools, an expressway interchange and many other infrastructures, several low cost housing projects, upgrading of mosques and temples, grants to community guilds and associations, cash payments to individuals etc. These election goodies were so many and so large that I doubt Najib and his deputy Muhyiddeen Yassin could keep track of the number or total cost.
The single event that impacted most on the electoral outcome was perhaps the occasion of Najib himself handing over RM5 million cash to 100 Felda settlers in a highly trumpeted ceremony 2 days before polling. These settlers were among victims of a failed project committed to a private developer 15 years ago.
The greatest irony was that amidst this election bribery spree, Najib made an impassioned last-minute plea to the electorate through an open letter bearing his signature, asking the electorate to give him another chance to institute ‘change’ in his administration so as to redeem Barisan Nasional’s past mistakes. But was Najib not aware that this endless stream of impromptu election goodies constitute serious offences under our Election Offences Act 1954 (Section 10)? By committing these acts of corruption to such an unprecedented scale while simultaneously articulating his ‘change’ agenda, he was in effect telling the world : “This is what I mean by ‘change’ – I will not hesitate to escalate corrupted activities and damn the laws, if my political interests so demand.”
Reflecting on Najib’s rule since taking effective control of the country in early 2009, this philosophy of ‘the end justifies the means’ as exemplified by his conduct in the Hulu Selangor by-election seems to aptly explain the series of scandals that illustrated the ruling power’s contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. These include the unconstitutional power grab in Perak, the continuing persecution of Anwar Ibrahim via the universally condemned phony sodomy trial II, the awkward attempt to hide the real culprits in the show trial of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s grisly murder, and the tragic death of Teoh Beng Hock under custody of MACC and the subsequent dubious inquest.
In the aftermath of this sordid by-election, Najib and his cohorts have expectedly hailed this disgraceful victory as the nation’s endorsement of Najib’s new policy and the shifting of support to Barisan Nasional (BN). However, removing the thin veneer of this pyrrhic victory, we find that the contrary is true. In fact, a cursory review of this by-election (many prefer to call it ‘buy-election’) has revealed trends and phenomena that should cause BN to get worried, very worried.
First, winning by a majority of 1,700 votes does not necessarily indicate an increase of support. On the contrary, it could mean a substantial drop of support, if we consider the fact that in the last general election in March 2008, BN’s combined majority of the three state constituencies that made up the parliamentary constituency of Hulu Selangor was 6,300 votes.
If UMNO can secure only a marginal victory (24,997 vs 23,272) after such heavy abuses of public funds and politically manipulated institutions, there is not the slightest chance that the same can be repeated in a general election, during which, Hulu Selangor will surely fall back to PR, just as Ijok did previously.
Second, judging from the response of the electorate during the election campaign, Najib’s ‘lMalaysia’ advocacy has failed to take root among BN’s supporters. This was prominently reflected in the respective finale of the two protagonists’ election campaign on the eve of polling. While the BN rally, estimated at 3,000, was attended almost exclusively by Malays, with a sprinkling of Indians; the 15,000 strong PR rally was a colourful display of multi-racialism with a healthy proportion of the three races of Malays, Chinese and Indians. It left one with the unmistakable impression that the coalition that has really succeeded in realizing ‘1Malaysia’ is PR, not BN.
Third, the Chinese support to BN has dwindled to an even smaller minority (less than one third) despite the many carrots dangled in their faces – particularly Najib’s personal promise to grant a RM3 million grant to a Chinese school the very next day of polling, conditioned upon a BN win. This indicates that the Chinese electorate has politically matured to the point that they are relatively immune to BN’s election bribery. For them, nothing short of real reforms would do.
As UMNO is not capable of instituting real reforms, this naturally spells the end of the political life span of the Chinese racial party MCA, and by corollary, that of Gerakan. With the Indian racial party MIC also having lost the support of Indians, the isolation of UMNO in Peninsular Malaysia is complete, since these 3 parties are UMNO’s only major partners in the Peninsula. Considering that they had been the bulwark of support to UMNO in past elections, their present eclipses mean that UMNO’s political wings in Peninsula are clipped.
Hence, UMNO’s final grasp at power is now hinged to its relationship with the BN component parties in Sabah and Sarawak, which unfortunately are not in the best of terms with the UMNO-dominated Federal government.
Known for their strong regionalism and thrust to their king-maker position by the political tsunami of the 2008 general elections, Sabah and Sarawak are now a hive of discontent and resentment against the exploitation and short-changing of their autonomous rights under the authocratic UMNO dominated BN leadership.
With a maimed UMNO in the Peninsula, and a surging Pakatan Rakyat offering a just deal and restoration of autonomy to these two states, the people there for the first time have the real option of clinching the best political deal since the formation of Malaysia almost 5 decades ago.
Since the people in Sabah and Sarawak are less race-conscious than their Peninsular counterparts and in fact rather irritated by the heavy racism practiced by UMNO, for how long can UMNO’s race politics withstand the challenge for influence by the multi-racial Pakatan Rakyat in these two territories, and by extension the political power over the entire country?
The Hulu Selangor by-election has given us a pointer, and it ain’t looking good for UMNO.
Kim Quek
Monday, April 26, 2010
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Who is frivolous: PI Bala or PM Najib?
07.12.2009
When questioned by reporters regarding private investigator P Subramaniam’s latest revelations implicating the family of Prime Minister Najib Razak in the Altantuya murder scandal, Najib snapped “I will not entertain any frivolous statement” and asked reporters to move on to the next question.
This curt reply to crassly cut reporters off from asking further questions sounds more like a reflex in panic, rather than a responsible answer from the prime minister of a supposedly democratic country. For it was a totally inappropriate reply to Bala’s serious accusation, made in circumstances that commanded respect and credibility.
What can be more serious than accusing Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor and his brother Nazim of having used the “carrot and stick” meneuver to force Bala to retract his first affidavit which implicated Najib in the murder scandal?
And what can be more respectable than having his revelations made in an interview conducted and witnessed by three senior lawyers of the country?
Bala alleged that Rosmah’c close associate Deepak Jaikishan offered him RM5 million and Nazim threatened to harm his family unless he followed Deepak’s instructions. This happened on the day he disclosed his first affidavit on 4th July 2008. Fearing the safety of his family, Bala retracted under coercion the allegations linking Najib to Altantuya in a second affidavit the next day, and disappeared immediately with his family until his recent interview which was captured in video and recorded in transcripts. These were first published in Malaysia-today.net and later relayed by other websites including Malaysiakini and Youtube.
In the interview, Bala described how he was forced into retraction and how he and his family embarked on their fugitive journey to India under the overall direction of Deepak. That journey was a rather convoluted and lengthy voyage that saw them passing through or staying for various durations at Singapore, Bangkok, Katmandu, Delhi, Madras and eventually Chennai.
Bala exuded confidence with his detailed description of occurrences supported by factual details that pin point the relevant players, locations, times, dates, durations, hotels, monetary figures, cheques, bank accounts, etc
Against these formidable allegations, all we have from the alleged culprits is deafening silence, despite the news having been circulated in the Internet for more than two weeks. Until, of course, when Najib dismissed these as “frivolous” and not worthy of his response, during a press conference after an UMNO supreme council meeting on Dec 4. This effectively means that Bala has cooked up a pack of damned lies, according to Najib.
So, one of them must have lied. Was it Bala, or was it Najib?
FACTS FAVOUR BALA
A cursory glance at the facts and circumstances surrounding the latest controversy would enable one to readily conclude that Bala has the upper hand, for the simple reasons that Bala’s accusation is buttressed by precise facts and details that could be easily debunked if false, while Najib and his group have chosen to remain silent in spite of the serious nature of the accusation.
If Bala’s statement is false, and with the immense power and resources at the disposal of the Prime Minister, there is no possible reason for Najib not to have instantly ordered an investigation, and bring Bala to face the consequences for having so openly and repeatedly defamed the Prime Minister and his family.
If Najib could have Raja Petra Kamarudin - webmaster of Malaysia today - charged for criminal defamation for the publication of an article in his website that said Rosmah was present at the crime scene, why can’t he do the same on Bala?
In fact, Bala’s case is even more serious, as he has signed on two contradictory affidavits – a clear offence of false declaration – besides accusing the Prime Minister and his family of involvement in murder.
And why should the Prime Minister, his family, and the various law-enforcing agencies be so kind and forgiving to Bala as to leave him untouched, while the nation suffers the humiliation of its Prime Minister being openly defamed and ridiculed?
FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE
Viewing the case from another angle – Bala’s perspective, it appears even more compelling that Bala was not likely to have lied.
Why should a family man like Bala falsely accuse the Prime Minister of involvement in the most heinous of crimes, knowing its serious consequences as an ex-police officer? What possible gain could he get, keeping in mind that he couldn’t have extorted any money, since the allegation is untrue?
Even if it is true that Bala had falsely accused Najib, that he had repented and retracted his allegations in a second affidavit, and ran away to another country to escape retribution, there is no conceivable reason for him to make a come-back to invent another pack of lies, thereby exposing himself for the second time to the risk of serious punishment. Unless, of course, he is a lunatic, which is clearly not the case.
GROUNDS OF SUSPICION ABOUND
Evidence of justice being aborted to protect Najib is found in the numerous irregularities that had occurred before and during the trial of the Altantuya murder.
Why was Najib not investigated since the first two accused, who were his body guards and took orders from him, had no apparent motive on their own to commit the murder, and the third accused was his confidante?
Why were the judge, prosecutors and even a defence lawyer abruptly replaced without credible reasons shortly before the trial?
Why was the motive for murder never raised during the trial?
Why did prosecutors and defence lawyer join forces to prevent critical evidence being pursued in court such as an alleged photograph showing Altantuya and Najib taking meals together and the mysterious erasure of immigration entry records of Altantuya and her Mongolian companions?
Why was Bala’s affidavit barred from the court without credible reasons?
Since the third accused, who was charged for instigating the murder, was released without his defence being called, then who had ordered the killing?
It is clear that unless these troubling questions are dealt with satisfactorily, there is no way Najib can clear himself of suspicions that have surrounded him, least of all, by waving away inquisitive questions by a curt reply like what he did in the said press conference.
In fact, such conduct only betrays his weaknesses. For it is plain commonsense that if Najib is on the side of truth, he would have welcome reporters to ask questions – instead of crudely shutting them up – so that he has a chance to exonerate himself. And he would also have taken action against Bala ages ago, instead of inaction for so long – perhaps with the hope of the scandal fizzling out in due course?
The latest Bala revelations have constituted a solemn challenge to the integrity and legitimacy of Najib’s premiership, for which he must now solemnly account to the nation.
And the only way to do that without dishonoring his oath of office is to commission a truly independent panel to uncover the truth and account to the nation.
Kim Quek
.
When questioned by reporters regarding private investigator P Subramaniam’s latest revelations implicating the family of Prime Minister Najib Razak in the Altantuya murder scandal, Najib snapped “I will not entertain any frivolous statement” and asked reporters to move on to the next question.
This curt reply to crassly cut reporters off from asking further questions sounds more like a reflex in panic, rather than a responsible answer from the prime minister of a supposedly democratic country. For it was a totally inappropriate reply to Bala’s serious accusation, made in circumstances that commanded respect and credibility.
What can be more serious than accusing Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor and his brother Nazim of having used the “carrot and stick” meneuver to force Bala to retract his first affidavit which implicated Najib in the murder scandal?
And what can be more respectable than having his revelations made in an interview conducted and witnessed by three senior lawyers of the country?
Bala alleged that Rosmah’c close associate Deepak Jaikishan offered him RM5 million and Nazim threatened to harm his family unless he followed Deepak’s instructions. This happened on the day he disclosed his first affidavit on 4th July 2008. Fearing the safety of his family, Bala retracted under coercion the allegations linking Najib to Altantuya in a second affidavit the next day, and disappeared immediately with his family until his recent interview which was captured in video and recorded in transcripts. These were first published in Malaysia-today.net and later relayed by other websites including Malaysiakini and Youtube.
In the interview, Bala described how he was forced into retraction and how he and his family embarked on their fugitive journey to India under the overall direction of Deepak. That journey was a rather convoluted and lengthy voyage that saw them passing through or staying for various durations at Singapore, Bangkok, Katmandu, Delhi, Madras and eventually Chennai.
Bala exuded confidence with his detailed description of occurrences supported by factual details that pin point the relevant players, locations, times, dates, durations, hotels, monetary figures, cheques, bank accounts, etc
Against these formidable allegations, all we have from the alleged culprits is deafening silence, despite the news having been circulated in the Internet for more than two weeks. Until, of course, when Najib dismissed these as “frivolous” and not worthy of his response, during a press conference after an UMNO supreme council meeting on Dec 4. This effectively means that Bala has cooked up a pack of damned lies, according to Najib.
So, one of them must have lied. Was it Bala, or was it Najib?
FACTS FAVOUR BALA
A cursory glance at the facts and circumstances surrounding the latest controversy would enable one to readily conclude that Bala has the upper hand, for the simple reasons that Bala’s accusation is buttressed by precise facts and details that could be easily debunked if false, while Najib and his group have chosen to remain silent in spite of the serious nature of the accusation.
If Bala’s statement is false, and with the immense power and resources at the disposal of the Prime Minister, there is no possible reason for Najib not to have instantly ordered an investigation, and bring Bala to face the consequences for having so openly and repeatedly defamed the Prime Minister and his family.
If Najib could have Raja Petra Kamarudin - webmaster of Malaysia today - charged for criminal defamation for the publication of an article in his website that said Rosmah was present at the crime scene, why can’t he do the same on Bala?
In fact, Bala’s case is even more serious, as he has signed on two contradictory affidavits – a clear offence of false declaration – besides accusing the Prime Minister and his family of involvement in murder.
And why should the Prime Minister, his family, and the various law-enforcing agencies be so kind and forgiving to Bala as to leave him untouched, while the nation suffers the humiliation of its Prime Minister being openly defamed and ridiculed?
FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE
Viewing the case from another angle – Bala’s perspective, it appears even more compelling that Bala was not likely to have lied.
Why should a family man like Bala falsely accuse the Prime Minister of involvement in the most heinous of crimes, knowing its serious consequences as an ex-police officer? What possible gain could he get, keeping in mind that he couldn’t have extorted any money, since the allegation is untrue?
Even if it is true that Bala had falsely accused Najib, that he had repented and retracted his allegations in a second affidavit, and ran away to another country to escape retribution, there is no conceivable reason for him to make a come-back to invent another pack of lies, thereby exposing himself for the second time to the risk of serious punishment. Unless, of course, he is a lunatic, which is clearly not the case.
GROUNDS OF SUSPICION ABOUND
Evidence of justice being aborted to protect Najib is found in the numerous irregularities that had occurred before and during the trial of the Altantuya murder.
Why was Najib not investigated since the first two accused, who were his body guards and took orders from him, had no apparent motive on their own to commit the murder, and the third accused was his confidante?
Why were the judge, prosecutors and even a defence lawyer abruptly replaced without credible reasons shortly before the trial?
Why was the motive for murder never raised during the trial?
Why did prosecutors and defence lawyer join forces to prevent critical evidence being pursued in court such as an alleged photograph showing Altantuya and Najib taking meals together and the mysterious erasure of immigration entry records of Altantuya and her Mongolian companions?
Why was Bala’s affidavit barred from the court without credible reasons?
Since the third accused, who was charged for instigating the murder, was released without his defence being called, then who had ordered the killing?
It is clear that unless these troubling questions are dealt with satisfactorily, there is no way Najib can clear himself of suspicions that have surrounded him, least of all, by waving away inquisitive questions by a curt reply like what he did in the said press conference.
In fact, such conduct only betrays his weaknesses. For it is plain commonsense that if Najib is on the side of truth, he would have welcome reporters to ask questions – instead of crudely shutting them up – so that he has a chance to exonerate himself. And he would also have taken action against Bala ages ago, instead of inaction for so long – perhaps with the hope of the scandal fizzling out in due course?
The latest Bala revelations have constituted a solemn challenge to the integrity and legitimacy of Najib’s premiership, for which he must now solemnly account to the nation.
And the only way to do that without dishonoring his oath of office is to commission a truly independent panel to uncover the truth and account to the nation.
Kim Quek
.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
MB vs MB: Federal Court of Judicial Pillars or Political Stooges?
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
