Restore world-class status for Malaysian universities – two first steps

Malaysia has fallen completely out of the list of the world’s Top 200 Universities this year in the 2007 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)-Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings.

This is a national shame, especially as occurring during the nation’s 50th Merdeka anniversary and it must serve as the latest warning to the national leaders to end their complacency and delusion that Malaysia is becoming more competitive globally when the reverse is actually the case.

The national shame of Malaysia falling completely out of the list of the world’s Top 200 Universities this year in the 2007 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)-Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings had been equaled by the scandal that this Malaysian ignominy had been totally ignored by the UMNO General Assembly, whether by UMNO delegates or leaders, as release of the rankings  coincided with the Umno General Assembly.

This shows the superficiality of the commitment of UMNO leaders to the slogan of “Cemerlang, Gemilang and Terbilang” and to transform Malaysia into a knowledge-based innovative economy marked by a world-class university system.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had after the UMNO General Assembly expressed his concern about the fall of Malaysian universities from the international league of best universities, but why wasn’t there a single reference to this shocking result in the UMNO General Assembly, touted as the most important national political assembly of the country?

Malaysian universities suffered a very serious drop in the international league of the world’s best universities in the 2007b THES-QS rankings,

For the first time, there is not only not a single university in the Top 200 Universities list, there is also not a single university in the separate ranking of Top 100 Universities for five subject areas — Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities; Life Sciences and Biomedicine; and Engineering and Information Technology.

For the Top 200 Universities List, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Universiti Malaya (UM) had fallen out of the ranking, with UKM plunging from 185th slot last year to 309th while University of Malaya plunged from 192nd last year to 246th spot. Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), which was ranked as the only “outstanding” five-star university in a recent government survey, has fallen to 307th spot from 277 last year. In 2005, USM was in the 326th spot.

The performance of Malaysian universities in the Top 100 lists for the five subject areas are even more dismal, with not a single university making into the five lists although last year University of Malaya was ranked 49 in Social Sciences and 95 in Natural Sciences, UKM was placed No. 62 in Natural Sciences, and University Sains Malaysia placed No. 96 for Life Sciences and Biomedicine.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) (No. 33) is ranked among the Top 100 Universities for all the five categories while Nanyang Technological University (NTU) (No. 69) is ranked among the Top 100 universities for three categories, viz: Engineering & IT; Natural Sciences and Social Sciences.

NUS is ranked No. 10 for Engineering & IT; No. 12 for Life Sciences and Biomedicine, No. 25 for Natural Sciences; No. 20 for Social Sciences and No. 21 for Arts & Humanities.

NTU is ranked No. 25 for Engineering & IT; No. 99 for Natural Sciences and No. 88 for Social Sciences.

Even Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University is rated among the Top 100 Universities for two categories — Engineering & IT (No. 100) and Social Sciences (No. 83)

Last year Malaysia was placed in four of the 500 slots in the five Top 100 Universities for the five subjects.

This year, Malaysia was completely excluded in all the five listings of Top 100 Universities for the five categories.

There are 38 “elite of elite” universities, which are not only ranked in the Top 200 Universities list, but also ranked in every one of the five Top 100 subject list. The country breakdown and details for these 38 “elite of elite” universities are:

Country

No of “elite of elite”
 Universities

United States

15

United Kingdom

4

Australia

6

Canada

5

China

2

Japan

2

South Korea

1

Taiwan

1

Singapore

1

Hong Kong

1

Total

38

Universities in the Asia-Pacific region which are in this exclusive 38  “elite of lelites” list are:

Country

University

Ranking in Top 200 Universities

Australia

ANU

16

Melbourne

27

Sydney

31

Queensland

33

Monash

43

New South Wales

44

Japan

Tokyo

17

Kyoto

25

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

18

Singapore

National University of Singapore

33

China

Peking

36

Tsinghua

40

South Korea

Seoul National

51

Taiwan

National Taiwan

102

Why is Malaysia not in this “elite of elites” listing and when will Malaysia have an university which will have all-round excellence as to be included in this list?

Until some 35 years ago, there was no doubt that University of Malaya was one of the world-class universities and if its university standards, quality and excellence had been maintained and not suffered any  precipitous plunge, University of Malaya would not only have taken her place in the Top 200 Universities ranking but would be one of the two scores of “elite of elite” universities enjoying all-rounded excellence to be ranked among the Top 100 universities for all the five different categories!

Today, Malaysian universities have plummeted so badly that nobody could now answer the question: Which is the Malaysian premier university?

Nobody knows and this is a big shame as it is caused not by competition by universities to be the best but to avoid the bigger plunge in international rankings.

Is it University of Malaya?

Until two years ago, there was no dispute if University of Malaya claimed to be the nation’s premier university — a position it had occupied unchallenged for over three decades.

It was also internationally recognized as the premier university in Malaysia as reflected by the 2004 and 2005 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World Universities Rankings for Top 200 Universities, being positioned No. 89 and 169th slots respectively.

However, it was toppled from the pedestal by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) when UKM beat University of Malaya in the 2006 THES ranking, placed No. 185 as compared to the 192nd position for University of Malaya.

Is it UKM then?

UKM’s placing on the top of the university pole in the country lasted one short year as in the 2007 THES Top 200 Universities ranking, UKM plunged a shocking 124 places from No. 185 to No. 309, not only behind University of Malaya’s No. 246 but also Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) which is placed No. 307.

Furthermore, in the recent government ranking for public universities, both UKM and University of Malaya was ranked behind USM, the sole university to be placed on the five-star Outstanding Category, with no university rated for the top-rung Excellent Category.

Is it then USM, to lay claim to be the nation’s best university?

Not so, although in the 2004 THES ranking, USM was rated among the Top 200 Universities when placed No. 111, but it plunged 215 places to No. 326 ranking in 2005, 277 in 2006 and 307 in 2007.

Year

2004

2005

2006

2007

USM THES Ranking

111

326

277

307

With no single university currently able to lay claim as the nation’s premier university, this sad state of affairs is a reflection of the very troubled public university sector.

May be this confusion awaits resolution when a private higher education institution establishes its claim as the nation’s premier university, better than anyone of the public universities — especially as the Chinese government has recognized 43 private universities and colleges as compared to only seven for public universities.

One aspect which had been overlooked in the latest THES Top 200 Universities ranking is that Malaysia is losing out badly in the international competition for excellence, not only to universities of developed nations but even those of developing nations.

Thailand, for instance, has established its superiority in university excellence to Malaysia when for three consecutive years, Chulalongkorn University of Thailand beat Malaysian universities in the THES ranking — 121 in 2005, 161 in 2006 and 223 in 2007 as compared to Malaysia’s best of 169 in 2005 (University of Malaya), 185 in 2006 (UKM) and 246 in 2007 (University of Malaya).

Also for the first time in the THES Top Universities Ranking, Malaysia has lost out to three other third-world nations, viz.

Country

University

Ranking in Top 200 Universities

Brazil

University of Sao Paulo

175

University of Campinas

177

Mexico

Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico

192

South Africa

University of Cape Town

200

Just as Vice Chancellors must be held responsible for the poor rankings of their universities, the Higher Education Minister, Datuk Mustapha Mohamad must bear personal responsibility for the dismal international ranking of Malaysian universities – particularly for Malaysia falling completely out of the list of the world’s Top 200 Universities this year in the 2007 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) – Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings.

I was  very surprised that the Higher Education Minister, who visiting universities in China last month, had asked the Chinese government to recognize more Malaysian universities and colleges for two reasons.

It was news to me and to most Malaysians that China has recognized 50 institutions in the public and private sector in Malaysia — 7 IPTAs (public institutions of higher learning) and 43 IPTSs (private institutions). This is a clear indicator that public universities in the country are losing out in terms of academic excellence and international recognition to private institutions.

Secondly, the Chinese government has recognizing more Malaysian universities and colleges than the Chinese universities and colleges recognized by the Malaysian government — when many Chinese universities are internationally recognized for their academic merit and excellence while Malaysian universities have disappeared from the international radar of academic excellence.

In the 2007 THES-QS World Top 200 University Rankings, six Chinese universities were ranked but not a single one from Malaysia.

The six Chinese universities are:

University

Ranking in Top 200 Universities

Peking University

36

Tsinghua University

40

Fudan University

85

Nanjing University

125

University of Science and Technology of China

155

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

163

China has two universities, Peking University and Tsinghua University, which are among the 38 “elite of elite” universities, as they are also listed in all the Top 100 Universities in all five different categories.

Altogether, Chinese universities occupy 21 spots in the 500 slots in the five Top 100 Universities for five categories — but Malaysia does not recognize anyone of them although we do not occupy a single spot in the 500 slots for the five lists of Top 100 Universities.

Malaysia even refuses to accord recognition to the degrees of Peking University and Tsinghua University, two of the “elite of elites” universities as the Malaysian government only recognizes their degrees for Chinese language studies.

Why has the Malaysian government not recognized these internationally-acclaimed Chinese universities for their world-class degrees and courses, when Malaysia does not have any equivalent whatsoever?

It is most strange and extraordinary that a country which has dropped out of world-class university rankings is asking for more recognition for its universities from another country with universities of international repute but which it has refused to recognize?

The Malaysian government should promptly and forthwith recognize all the degrees of Chinese universities which are internationally-recognized as among the world’s top universities, and not just the Chinese Language Studies of four Chinese universities, before we can righteously ask China for more recognition of Malaysian universities by Chinese government.

Malaysians have not been told the real and true reasons for the shocking performance of Malaysian universities in the THES-QS Top 200 Universities ranking. Malaysian universities have been consistent in increasingly deplorable results in world rankings, whether the THES-QS, Shanghai Jiao Tong University World’s Best 500 Universities or the Newsweek’s Top 100 Global Universities.

 If the government is serious about its slogan of “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang” to create a world-class university system to transform Malaysia into a knowledge-based innovative economy, it must end the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the universities and fully restore the policy of meritocracy and academic excellence coupled with social need to provide university education opportunities to economically-backward Malaysians regardless of race.

It is the NEP policy and mentality which caused University of Malaya to fall 213 rankings behind University of Singapore in less than four decades as both universities had started on the same footing some 50 years ago. University of Malaya is ranked No. 246 as compared to the 33rd ranking for National University of Singapore.

The government must recognize that so long as the NEP is kept in place in the universities, there would be no way for any Malaysian public university to compete with other universities from other countries. This is why Malaysia is also losing out to universities from Thailand and Africa — which was unthinkable four decades ago!

If Malaysia is to get back to the trail of world-class academic excellence, all universities should be allowed to enroll the most qualified students, employ the most competent professors and researchers with competitive remunerations and restore a culture of academic excellence and freedom.

One simple test of whether the government is seriously committed to abandon the baggage of past NEP policies to create a world-class university system is whether it has the political will to end the annual brain drain depriving Malaysia of the best and brightest for the development of the country.

For a start, the Higher Education Minister should ask the  Cabinet to  check the annual four-figure brain-drain of the best and brightest STPM students and Chinese Independent Secondary school students to Singapore by providing them equitable higher education opportunities at home to demonstrate that the government is serious in wanting to build a world-class university system.

Secondly, the Higher Education Minister must ask the Cabinet to end the present fraudulent meritocracy using both STPM and matriculation by having a common university entrance examination.

This is the recommendation of the World Bank study on “Malaysia and the Knowledge Economy: Building a World-Class Higher Education System” submitted to the government in March this year.

Otherwise, the Higher Education Ministry is only continuing to pay lip service to university excellence and quality without the political will to bring about the institutional changes without which there is no way for Malaysian universities to return to world-class university status.

(Opening speech when moving RM1-cut motion for salary of Higher Education Minister, Datuk Mustapha Mohamad in Dewan  Rakyat on Thursday, 6th December 2007)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2007, 7:23 am and is filed under
Education
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zaki’s quadruple jump as Court of Appeal President – will he undertake to recuse himself from all cases involving Umno?

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, cannot be more wrong when he cited
Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah
as a precedent for the fast-track elevation of Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi as the Court of Appeal President, half-a-heart beat away as Chief Justice of Malaysia in ten months’ time in October next year.

Zaki’s triple jump to become Federal Court judge in September  without ever being High Court  or  Court of Appeal judge is completely without precedent in the nation’s judicial history for half-a-century — just like  his quadruple jump in three months up the judicial hierarchy to become the Court of Appeal President or  his quintuple jump in a matter of a year  when he is appointed Chief Justice of Malaysia next October when Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad steps down  from the topmost judicial post.

Nazri had been wrongly advised  about the history of judicial appointments for Dzaiddin, who served as High Court Judge for  more than 10 years and Federal Court judge for seven years before he was unexpectedly appointed the Chief Justice of Malaysia in December 2000 — as the choice of the Conference of Rulers which  had rejected  the original nominee presented by the then Prime Minister.

What are the grounds for the supersonic flight up the judicial  hierarchy for Zaki – apart from his Umno associations –  as he is no legal luminary in the Malaysian legal firmament.

At a time when the country is struggling to come out of the 19-year crisis of confidence in  the independence, integrity and competence of the judiciary, Zaki’s most unorthodox triple, quadruple and quintuple leap up the judicial hierarchy raises most disturbing questions whether there is any real understanding let alone political will on the part of the top national leadership on the urgent need  to restore the Malaysian judiciary to the world-class level it had enjoyed two decades ago.

Or is Malaysia on the occasion of its 50th Merdeka anniversary taking the first step to have an Umno Chief Justice instead of a Chief Justice for all Malaysians by October next year?

Zaki’s long association as Umno legal adviser  and corporate lawyer (including being involved  in dubious Umno corporate deals) is a matter of public record and  well-known.

Zaki should explain how he proposes to assure Malaysians that he would be Court of Appeal President and later Chief Justice of Malaysia for all 27 million Malaysians and not just for Umno.

Is he still an Umno member and if not, when did he resign from Umno.

What were the corporate appointments, associations and involvements which he relinquished following his appointment as Federal Court judge in September, and why is he shy to make public the  full list of the corporate appointments he had relinquished and still to be relinquished which is routine for judges in developed countries where judicial accountability, transparency and integrity are taken seriously.

Will Zaki undertake to recuse himself from all cases with Umno political and corporate interests while serving as Court of Appeal  President and when elevated to Chief Justice of Malaysia in 10 months’ time to assure all Malaysians that he would not compromise the principle of judicial independence and integrity?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 December 2007, 2:01 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Terrorist links – stop demonising Hindraf leaders and two million Indians for speaking up against marginalisation

I call on the  the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General to stop treating Hindraf leaders and ordinary Malaysians who attended the Nov. 25 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration as “terrorists” just because “somebody” had lodged a police report that Hindraf has contacts with LTTE.

Just because “somebody” had lodged a police report making an accusation against an organization cannot be the basis for any public policy as the government, Inspector-General of Police  and the Attorney-General will surely not treat UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaders and members as “terrorist” just because “somebody” has lodged an unsubstantiated  police report that they have connections or links with terrorist organizations.

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail was the first to raise the alleged  Hindraf links with terrorists when he deployed it as the “star” argument at the Shah Alam Sessions Court on Wednesday  to oppose the application for  bail for the 31 persons charged for  the “attempted murder”  of a policeman. What was the justification for the Attorney-General leading the attack on Hindraf for its alleged terrorist links?

Yesterday, Gani said  his linking Hindraf to the LTTE in his argument at the Shah Alam Sessions Court on Wednesday was based on a police report.

He said: “Somebody lodged a police report that there is ground that these people have been going out to (establish) contact with this LTTE.’

Surely, this is too flimsy a ground for the Attorney-General to found his whole court strategy to virtually  regard  the 31 ordinary Malaysians as terrorists out to wreck the country and too dangerous to be allowed out on bail pending their trial.

But this is  exactly the line which  the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, the Police and the Attorney-General have adopted  with regard to the Hindraf leaders and the  ordinary Malaysians who had gathered for  Nov. 25 rally to peacefully, democratically and constitutionally send a clear and unmistakable “cry of desperation” of the long-standing political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious marginalization of the Malaysian Indians into a new underclass to serve as a wake-up call to the Barisan Nasional Government.

The Prime Minister has led the attack on Hindraf for its allegations of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide of Indians in Malaysia, but can the government, police and Attorney-General, with the vast resources at their command, be unaware that the 30,000 Malaysian Indians who had congregated in Kuala Lumpur from all over the country were completely unconnected to  these allegations and that their support of the Hindraf demonstration was for one and only one purpose – to call the attention of the government to the decades-long  marginalization of the Malaysian Indians?

Have the top   Barisan Nasional leadership decided on  a harsh and even cruel response to the “cry of desperation” by 30,000 Malaysian Indians on behalf of two million Malaysian Indians for an end to their marginalization as Malaysian citizens, as illustrated by:

•	the demonisation of Hindraf leaders and creating the conditions to prepare for their detention under the Internal Security Act, with growing chorus of demand for the invocation of the ISA by BN Ministers and even with the Prime Minister publicly discussing the ISA option; and

•	treating those  who attended the Hindraf demonstration as “terrorists” and grave threats to national security who cannot be allowed bail when they are ordinary Malaysians who have nothing to do with the allegations of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide and only wanted their legitimate grievances about the marginalization of Malaysian Indians to be heard and addressed by the government.

The Prime Minister and the Barisan Nasional government must be forewarned – that a harsh, insensitive, cruel  and high-handed response to the 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration on the marginalization of the Malaysian Indians, demonizing the Hindraf leaders as terrorists and the two million Malaysian Indians who want an end to their marginalization as grave national security threats will only  aggravate the sense of alienation, deprivation and marginalization of the Malaysian Indian community.

It will have grave short-term, mid-term and long-term repercussions.

Short-term, there will be further alienation of the Malaysian Indian community aggravating racial polarization and national division, undermining our international competitiveness.

This will also have electoral consequences for the forthcoming general election, as there are 62 parliamentary seats and 138 state assembly seats in Peninsular Malaysia where the Indian voters account for more than 10% of the electorate – not enough to singly decide the outcome of any constituency but able to influence as to which party and candidate will get elected in the constituency.

There are 13 such parliamentary and 27 state assembly seats in Perak – with Indian voters comprising as high as 26% for a  parliamentary constituency and 45% for a  state assembly seat.

If the Malaysian Indians continue to be marginalized, and their “cry of desperation” on Nov. 25 by 30,000 people on behalf of two million Malaysian Indians result in further marginalization, then Barisan Nasional candidates cannot depend on the Malaysian Indian votes as a captive vote bank as in past general elections and by-elections.

In the higher interests of national unity and greater international  competitiveness, sanity and good sense must prevail and I call on the Prime Minister to provide the leadership to respond positively, constructively and in a statesmanlike manner to the “cry of desperation” for justice of the Malaysian Indian community to end their long-standing marginalization with two measures:

•	Establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Hindraf demonstration on Nov. 25, the police handling and conduct as well as allegations of terrorist links of Hindraf; and

•	A National Conference of all political parties, NGOs and stakeholders to deal with the root causes of the Hindraf demonstration – the marginalization of the Malaysian Indians – but with a larger national ambit and term of reference: a New Deal to end the marginalization of the Malaysian Indians and all marginalized groups in the country.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 December 2007, 10:40 am and is filed under
Indians
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


AG’s Hindraf selective and malicious prosecution – widening crisis of confidence in administration of justice

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail should drop the charge of  “attempted murder” against the “Batu Caves 31” and abandon the  manhunt  to charge at least another 30 on the same count as it will result in a new crisis of confidence in the administration of justice over  selective and malicious prosecution in the abuse  of  the Attorney-General’s discretionary prosecution  powers.

It is most outrageous and a blot in the Malaysian administration of justice that the Shah Alam Sessions Court could be so harsh, excessive and unconscionable as to accede to the Attorney-General’s outrageous demand to deny bail to the 31 persons charged with the ridiculous offence of attempted murder of a policeman and to send them to  Sungai Buloh Prison in the past four days since Thursday.

Sixteen of these 31 had been earlier charged in the Selayang session’s court with being at an illegal assembly in front of Sri Subramaniam Temple at Batu Caves  between 1 am and 8 am on Nov. 25, and released on a court bail of RM1,000 each.

They were free for only three days as  they were re-arrested for the capital offence of among 31 for the  attempted murder of a cop, for which they were not allowed bail and sent to Sungai Buloh Prison pending trail, which could see them being imprisoned for months on end although their guilt has not been established and have their innocence proved at the end of the trial.

In upholding  the Attorney-General’s unreasonable demand that the 31 be denied bail,   Shah Alam sessions judge Azimah Omar said she had considered the severity of the offences and the issue of national security in the ruling. She said that the participants in a large unlawful gathering had put the public and national interest at stake, not that of any particular ethnicity, religion or race.

As these 16 persons had been released on bail for three days before re-arrest for the capital offence of “attempted murder”, were there any evidence in those three days of freedom to show that these 16 people were grave threats to national security as to justify their being treated as hard-core anti-national elements?

Did the Session Court judge acted rightly, fairly and judiciously  in exercising her discretion to accede to the Attorney-General’s demand to deny the 31 bail, despite the clear evidence of the medical and other problems faced by the accused?

What is even more shocking is the disclosure by Gani Patail at the Shah Alam Session Court last Thursday for  a
manhunt
 for at least another 30 to be charged with attempted murder.

To charge 31 persons  for the attempted murder of a policeman injured in the fracas at the Batu Caves on Nov. 25 is already outrageous and  mind- boggling enough – but clearly, the Attorney-General is determined to set a new mind-boggling record of outrage in wanting to prosecute over 61 persons for the attempted murder of one cop in one fracas in Batu Caves with the manhunt.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is well-advised to caution the Attorney-General of the far-reaching consequences of provoking a new crisis of confidence in the administration of justice through flagrant abuse of the Attorney-General’s absolute discretion in prosecution with blatant instances of selective and malicious prosecution.

For the best part of the past decade, the crisis of confidence in the administration of justice had been confined to the judiciary’s failure in independence and integrity – with the country spared of the earlier crisis of confidence over the Attorney-General’s abuse of his discretionary powers through blatant selective and malicious prosecution.

Is Malaysia going to see a return of the double-barrelled crisis of confidence in the administration of justice – not only over the lack of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary but also in the blatant abuse of discretionary powers of prosecution of the Attorney-General?

(Media Conference Statement 2 at the DAP Ipoh Timur/Batu Gajah foodfair at Tou Boo Kong Temple, Ipoh  on Sunday, 9th December 2007 at 11 am)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 9 December 2007, 2:24 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Human Rights Day arrests – police takes off velvet glove to show iron fist

The high-handed and arbitrary police
arrests
 of eight people, including five lawyers, for the peaceful march to mark the International Human Rights Day in Kuala Lumpur this morning has marred the celebration of Human Rights Day and blotted Malaysia’s international image on human rights.

The arrest of the eight, including five lawyers,  N Surendran, Latheefa Koya, R Sivarasa, Eric Paulsen and Amer Hamzah, and human rights activists  Anthony Andu and  Norazah Othman in totally unprovoked circumstances is a great shame for the Abdullah premiership, as the some 100 people who had gathered at Sogo Department store in Kuala Lumpur to march to the Central Market in the federal capital clearly posed no threat to anyone, let alone national security, public order or peace.

Why couldn’t the police leave the marchers alone, only taking action if they pose a threat to national order or security, eschewing all forms of  police over-reaction which can only add  to the list of adverse international publicity which had been piling for Malaysia in recent months.

The police arrests of the eight on International Human Rights Day is doubly ominous for it is a clear symbol that the Abdullah premiership, which had started with the false promise of greater respect for human rights, has finally  taken off its  velvet glove to show the iron fist within  to crush expressions of  human rights in the country.

It makes total nonsense of Royal Police Commission headed by former Chief Justice, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah which had identified  upholding human rights as one of the three core objectives of the Police force in the 21st century  – the other two being to  keep crime low and to eradicate corruption in the police service.

Suhakam  has also been calling for a revamp of police mentality on human rights, to transform the police  stance of innate hostility to human rights to that of an agent and ally of change to promote and protect the human rights of Malaysians.  Clearly, Suhakam’s various proposals to mainstream human rights in police  mindset and strategy have fallen  on deaf ears.

Abdullah has been Prime Minister for four years and is starting his fifth year as Malaysian premier.  The institutions, instruments and mentality  of repression of human rights have not been dismantled in the past four years of Abdullah premiership, which means that there has been no basic difference from the Mahathir premiership as the draconian laws and powers can be dusted off any time to crack down  on human rights and democratic freedoms in  Malaysia.

The eight arrested today in connection with the Human Rights Day march should be released forthwith and Abdullah should direct the police to undertake a full review of its mindset and modus operandi to ensure that the police are attuned to the Merdeka Constitution and  Rukunegara principles which  give pride of place to democracy and human rights  as important  national objectives.

I will raise in Parliament tomorrow the high-handed and arbitrary  police arrests of the eight on international Human Rights Day and demand a public apology by the police.

(Media Conference Statement at the DAP Ipoh Timur/Batu Gajah foodfair-cum-children colouring competition  at Tou Boo Kong Temple,  Ipoh on Sunday, 9th December 2007 at 11 am)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 9 December 2007, 12:49 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A Legacy the Country Can Do Without

by
M. Bakri Musa

When the Council of Rulers did not even entertain former Chief Justice Ahmad Feiruz’s request for an extension of his tenure, it went beyond royal rebuff.  It was a very public and equally royal repudiation of Prime Minister Abdullah’s judgment.

            The Council went further.  Traditionally it does not even announce details of its meetings, but on October 31st, 2007 the Rulers specifically stated that the item was not even on their agenda.  Presumably they went out of their way to declare this fact openly to pre-empt anyone from “spinning” this royal snub into something else.

            The immediate consequence was that Feiruz left office unceremoniously the next day, with no end-of-term “photo ops,” elaborate dinners, or the obligatory farewell tours.  There was not even a parting interview or any dispensing of words of wisdom.  It was the body language of someone drummed out of office rather than a dignified farewell of someone proud of his legacy.  It was the image of a guard dog turned renegade, desperate to escape for fear of being shot, with its tail between its legs after it was found snatching one of the lambs it was supposed to protect.

            On this point, Ahmad Feiruz had read the situation well; his legacy is not one that the nation should be proud of; neither should he.

            Has Prime Minister Abdullah learned anything from this disgraceful saga?  Sadly, no! In elevating recently appointed Judge Zaki Azmi to be President of the Court of Appeals, the number two slot and thus potentially in line to be the next Chief Justice, Abdullah has again demonstrated his incompetence as well as inability and unwillingness to learn from his mistakes.

            This is the same Zaki Azmi who before his elevation to the bench grabbed headlines with his attempt to have his second marriage in South Thailand annulled.  Press reports alleged that he might have instructed his bride to destroy their wedding certificate, potentially an act that could be construed as obstruction of justice, a serious charge especially to an officer of the court.

            Nonetheless he had the personal integrity then to withdraw himself from UMNO’s Disciplinary Committee investigating “money politics.”  Thus we have the specter of a man who earlier felt himself unqualified to be in UMNO Disciplinary Committee being appointed by the party’s leader to be next in line as Chief Justice.  The mockery of this appointment is lost on the judge as well as the Prime Minister.

A Shameful Legacy

 The legacy of a judge is his written judgments.  According to the Bar Council, during the seven years he was on the High Court, Feiruz wrote a meager seven judgments, about one a year!  Such productivity!  Despite that, he was promoted to the Appeals Court.  In the seven years he was on the Federal Court (the highest) he was no better, writing a total of again seven judgments only.  This is not a question of quality making up for quantity, rather a legacy lacking in both.

            I read his last written judgment on the highly publicized Lina Joy case in which he, as Chief Justice, wrote for the majority.  It was enough to discourage me from looking up his other cases.  Feiruz obviously had not heard of such basic tenets of democracy as the freedom of beliefs and conscience.  To him, one should not be allowed to change one’s religion “on a whim.”  He missed the elementary principle that freedom when constrained is not it.

            Such a high profile and potential landmark case would have been a splendid and rare opportunity for him to showcase his judicial wisdom, legal scholarship, and grasp of social realities.  His authoring the majority report indicated that he did recognize that occasion; alas none of those qualities are reflected in his written judgment.  There was a reason – he lacked them!

            His non-bench commentaries were equally mediocre.  His speech at a recent symposium honoring the late legal luminary Ahmad Ibrahim was inappropriate as well as injudicious, if not downright irresponsible as well.  He advocated doing away with the current reliance on English common law in favor of the Sharia.  Such a suggestion would have been appropriate from a legal scholar, and would have precipitated lively and productive legal, political, and philosophical debates.  Coming from the Chief Justice, a man sworn to uphold the law (presumably in its current form) his advocacy was misplaced and downright reprehensible.  It would shake the public’s confidence in our laws and courts.  Such wild speculations do not reflect mature or judicial temperament.

            Even Ahmad Ibrahim, an expert in our constitution as well as Islamic laws, and whose intellect, scholarship and legal talent dwarfed Feiruz’s, had never suggested anything even remotely close.

            In the end it is wholly appropriate that Feriuz’s legacy, or more correctly notoriety, would have nothing to do with his performance on the bench.  Instead he will be remembered as the judge mentioned in the infamous “Lingam tape” of the pariah lawyer bragging of his ability to have senior judges in his pocket.  Such supreme irony!

Precedent Setting Royal Snub

Ahmad Feiruz would not have made his formal request to the Rulers for an extension of his tenure without Abdullah first agreeing to it.  In rebuffing Feiruz, the Rulers were also brushing off Prime Minister Abdullah. Whether Abdullah is too dense to get this none-too-subtle message or that his advisors had “spin” it differently to him is immaterial; it is obvious to all.

            From his reactions, it was equally obvious that Abdullah was totally unprepared for this royal rebuff.  Consequently when Feiruz left, he was automatically replaced by his number two, as per the constitution.  Once again the Prime Minister was pathetically reduced to a hapless bystander, unable to control much less influence events around him.  Instead events had overtaken him.

            The power to appoint senior judges in particular the chief justice is one of the most important prerogatives of the chief executive.  It is the one power that he or she would not want delegated.  It is also one that should be exercised with great diligence, as its impact would long outlast the term of the chief executive.

            Obviously Abdullah does not appreciate the import of this authority.  On second thought, Abdullah has been derelict in all his other responsibilities, so this is nothing unusual.

            This Council of Rulers is no ordinary one, for among its members is Raja Azlan Shah, the current Sultan of Perak and a former distinguished Chief Justice.  Rest assured that his brother rulers were paying close attention to what he had to say on the matter of Feiruz.  Raja Azlan had formed his judgment on his later successor, and his brother rulers listened.

            It is one thing for the laity to pass judgment on your professional capability, but when it is one of your peers especially one as distinguished as Raja Azlan, then that is significant.

            All these are obvious to everyone; yet we have the de facto Law Minister Nazri arguing that the King has to abide by the advice of the Prime Minister on this matter.  By not even entertaining Feiruz’s request, the King through his brother rulers is also crudely telling Nazri to shove it.

            Whether Nazri is as dense as Abdullah in not getting this brutal message is immaterial.  What we do know is that the King has effectively shut Nazri up.  I eagerly await Nazri’s response.  In particular I would like to see whether he has the strength of his conviction to challenge the Rulers.

            If Nazri and Abdullah do not challenge this precedent-setting move by the Rulers, it would establish once and for all the operative meaning of that seemingly innocuous clause – “royal advice” – stated so dryly in our constitution.

            Whether Ahmad Feiruz or Prime Minister Abdullah is getting the royal shove does not interest me in the least, but when there is a significant shift in our constitutional processes, especially in matters of the crucial exercise of checks and balances, that should concern us all.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 10 December 2007, 4:12 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah – listen to Musa Hitam and step on the brakes for a major Ops Lalang crackdown

I call on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  to revoke the “green light” for the mass arrests and prosecutions and to pull back from the brink of the precipice of  a major crackdown on human rights and democracy which will push back democratization and liberalization for decades.

Many are asking whether the country is on the eve of a second Operation Lalang when there was a major crackdown on human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy  in 1987 with mass arrests under the Internal Security Act and the closure of four newspapers which was  followed by the “mother” of all judicial crisis in 1988  causing irretrievable damage to the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Abdullah made the promise to protect and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law when he became Prime Minister just four years ago and I call on him to step on the brakes to prevent the country from careening down the slope of a major assault on human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Former Deputy Prime Minister and the first Suhakam Chairman,
Tun Musa Hitam
, has provided a solution to prevent the country plunging down the slope of a new “dark age” for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

In an interview with New Sunday Times, Musa has made an eloquent call for Malaysia to be one of the first developing nations to show respect for the human right of freedom of  expression by allowing peaceful assemblies and demonstrations.

Asked “Is Malaysia ready for peaceful assemblies”, Musa gave the refreshing and confident reply:  “Yes, Come on, we have been independent for 50 years.”

Musa is right when he made two important points, which should be serious thought by the Prime Minister and Cabinet on Wednesday.

Firstly, the fallacy of equating “demonstrations” with “violence”.

Musa rightly pointed out that Malaysia should move forward and away from the mentality equating  “demonstrations” with “violence”, and he made proposals for  peaceful demonstrations to  be allowed by the government, with the responsibility for ensuring that the demonstrations are peaceful also being placed on the organizers.

Secondly, Musa’s rebuttal of the repeated TV claim  and dismissal of demonstrations as “Ini bukan budaya kita” (This is not our culture).

Musa said: “I’m sorry for ridiculing this, but where is there a budaya (culture of violence) anywhere in the country? Do you think violence is a French budaya? Indonesians? Filipinos?”

Abdullah and the Cabinet should also heed Musa’s  sobre views and appraisal of the national situation, particularly his frank views that the problems faced by the Malaysian Indians are “genuine”, which are part of national problems, and that the Indians are feeling “desperate” as they are not satisfied with the representation by the MIC which are considered ineffective.

The following observations by Musa  particularly bears heart-searching by the Cabinet on Wednesday:

“Of course, everybody has complaints. The Malays have complaints. But the Tamils are such a minority and they don’t form an important force, so people don’t seem to pay too much attention to them. But they need this attention.

“This is a question of attitude.  I am so happy that the prime minister actually directed the MIC to look into the matter. But they should not have been told by the prime minister. It should have been an on-going thing. Maybe they need to have a good fresh look at themselves.”

What is sad and tragic is that the MIC has led the national campaign to deny what the majority of the two million Malaysian Indians feel strongly, that they had suffered long-standing marginalization whether politically, economically, educationally, socially, culturally and religiously resulting in their becoming the new underclass in the country.

Samy Vellu and the other MIC leaders are very outspoken in denying the allegations of Hindraf leaders about “ethnic cleansing” and genocide of Indians in Malaysia. Why are they not prepared to be equally outspoken by  admitting and declaring in the Cabinet, Parliament and government the fact of  long-standing marginalization of Malaysian Indians which warrant a new government policy for a New Deal to end the marginalisation of the Malaysian Indians and all marginalized groups in Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 10 December 2007, 3:46 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah’s Black Sunday for human rights on International Human Rights Day

I have this morning given notice to the Parliament Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah to move an emergency motion in Parliament tomorrow on Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s  Black Sunday for human rights on International Human Rights Day yesterday – with mass arrests of peaceful Human Rights Day marchers, lawyers and BERSIH leaders.

My urgent motion reads:

“That the House gives leave to  Ketua Pembangkang YB Lim Kit Siang to adjourn the House under S.O. 18 (1) to discuss a definite matter of  urgent public importance –  the police  mass  arrests on the occasion of International Human Rights Day on 9th December 2007.

“International Human Rights Day on Sunday 9th December 2007 turned out to be a Black Sunday for Malaysia with mass police arrests including  lawyers and peaceful marchers to mark human rights day, Bar Council Human Rights Committee chairman Edmund Bon and two leading lights of BERSIH,   Pas vice president Mohamad Sabu and Parti Keadilan Rakyat information chief Tian Chua showing utter contempt and disregard   of human rights by the police and the government.

“The arrest of the eight persons on Sunday morning, including five lawyers,  N Surendran, Latheefa Koya, R Sivarasa, Eric Paulsen and Amer Hamzah, and human rights activists  Anthony Andu and  Norazah Othman in totally unprovoked circumstances is a blot on human rights in Malaysia, as the some 100 people who had gathered for the  march in Kuala Lumpur clearly posed no threat to anyone, let alone national security, public order or peace.

“The arrest  and manhandling of Edmond Bon at the Bar Council premises in connection with  Human Rights Day banners were  clear abuses of police powers,  excessive use of force and public display of police contempt for human rights.

 “The arrest of Mohamad Sabu and Tian Chua and others, with numbers and identities not fully disclosed by the police, rounded up the Black Sunday in the four-year premiership of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, which had started on Oct. 30, 2003 with  promise of greater respect for human rights.

“Has the Abdullah premiership finally  taken off its  velvet glove to show the iron fist within  to crush human rights in the country?”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 10 December 2007, 11:03 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


DPM and PM are both liars

by
Richard Teo

 How could god fearing leaders perpetuate a lie in order to further their agenda of remaining in

office?

    For DPM, Najib to label Hindraf as a violent and extremist group is doing a great injustice to the marginalised miniority Malaysian indians. This is a blatant lie that honest, fair minded citizens cannot accept as the truth.

    How could a peaceful group of Hindraf supporters who participated in a peaceful assembly just two weeks ago suddenly being transformed into a terrorist group is beyond the comprehension of Malaysians of all race and creed.

    Quite obviously, Najib was merely parroting what the Attorney-General Gani Patil was arguing in the courts to deny bail for the 31 Hindraf supporters. (They  were denied bail.) On the basis of a flimsy Police  report without proper investigative measure he surmised that Hindraf was a terrorist group with contacts with the Tamil Tigers, LTTE.

      How could any one classify Hindraf as a terrorist group when their only crime to date was to participate in a peaceful assembly to articulate their grievances? An assembly that was deemed illegal because of the govt’s decision not to issue them with a permit.

     If at all it was accused as a terrorist organisation then it must be the world’s most harmless

group of terrorists because it had not fired a single bullet, it has not caused any violence, it has not professed the destruction of any instituition and yet beyond the imagination of fair minded people they were called an extremist terrorist organisation.

     Perhaps their only folly or mistake was to insert the offensive term of ethnic cleansing in their memorandum of petition which they had purpotedly filed with the British Embassy.A more appropriate replacement of words in their petition would be marginalisation and discrimination of the non-malays in general and the Indians in particular.

     For the PM to follow the DPM in lying is most unforgiveable, especially in full public view of the mainstream media.

     At the IMT-CT SME conference and Expo 2007 the PM went on record to say,”Half of the cabinet is non-malays,non UMNO members and non-muslims”. If we refer to the Prime Minister Office web-site we will find that 69% or 22 out of the 32 cabinet Ministers are from UMNO, 23 out of 32 cabinet Ministers are Malays, 25 out of 32 ministers are bumiputra and 23 cabinet Ministers are muslims.

    I do not wish to be too harsh on both of them because they are both religious people but would I be impolite to say that they are both liars?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 10 December 2007, 4:38 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Hindraf
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Blackest day for Parliament in 50 years

This is the blackest day for Parliament in 50 years.

In utter contempt  of the sanctity  of Parliament and the honour and dignity of Members of Parliament, the police arrested over 20 people in the parliamentary precincts.

Among those arrested were PAS leaders  Mustapha Ali and Dr. Hatta Ramli, Parti Keadilan Rakyat secretary-general Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Information chief Tian Chua, Parti Sosialis Malaysia protem chairman Dr. Nasir Hashim as well as activists from the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) including  Suaram executive director Yap Swee Seng, Centre for Independent Journalism executive director V Gayathry, Pusat Komas programme director Mien Lor, Writers Alliance for Media Independence chairperson Wong Chin Huat, PAS Research Centre director Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad and Harakah advertising manager Mokhtar Rosaidi.

I was eye-witness to the police arrest of Mustapha, Yap Swee Seng, Wong Chin Huat and Gayathry within the precincts of Parliament. In fact, I was accompanying Yap, Wong and Gayathry out of Parliament when the police abused its powers to effect the arrest within parliamentary precincts during lunch-break.

I protested strongly against such a most shameful episode in the annals of Malaysian history in 50 years when Dewan Rakyat resumed sitting after lunch recess, proposing a privilege motion to direct the Police to release all arrested within parliamentary precincts – as the police arrests should have been made outside Parliament.  However, there was no support whatsoever from any Barisan Nasional MP or Minister.

Nine DAP MPs and one PAS MP also met the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah to lodge the strongest possible protest and he said he would seek clarification from the Inspector-of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan.

The blackest day for Parliament in 50 years after the
Black Sunday
 of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his fifth year as fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 11 December 2007, 3:23 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


DAP ceramah – New Deal for marginalised Indians and all marginalised groups

DAP Ceramah – New Deal for marginalised Indians and all marginalised groups

Speakers –

1. Lim Guan Eng DAP Secretary-General

2. M. Kulasegaran – MP Ipoh Barat

3. Fong Kui Lun – MP Bukit Bintang

4. A. Sivanesan – CEC member

5. M. Manoharan – Human Rights lawyer

6. Lim Kit Siang – Parliamentary Opposition Leader

Venue – Wisma NUBE,

    No. 12 Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3, Brickfields,

    (besides Petronas station)

Date – Wednesday 12th December 2007 (7.30 pm)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 4:18 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Haidar as head of  Lingam Tape RCI and restricted terms of reference – most disappointing and great letdown

The  appointment of Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor as
Chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry
into the Lingam Tape scandal and the commission’s restricted terms of reference are most disappointing  and a great letdown for Malaysians who had looked forward to a new page for Malaysia’s judiciary and administration of justice.

Haidar, who was former Chief Judge of Malaya, is clearly not acceptable or suitable to be Chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal  in view of his disgraceful  role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis  which saw the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and two Supreme Court judges, Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh – the “mother” of a string  of judicial crisis in the past 19 years  which rocked the country with repeated  erosion and ravages of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

In drawing up very restricted terms of reference strictly confining the Royal Commission of Inquiry to the Lingam Tape,  the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has missed the golden opportunity to put right what had been wrong and rotten with the system of justice for nearly two decades.

What Abdullah should have done is to frame  the widest and most comprehensive terms of reference to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape with the mandate to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

The missed golden opportunity – which can come only once-in-a-lifetime – is felt most  acutely with the brave admission by the new Chief Justice, Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad on the rot in the administration of justice  and his vow for a “house-cleaning” of the judiciary.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry with the widest  ambit to restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary would be a great ally for the new Chief Justice’s vow of “house-cleaning” of the judiciary.

Why is Abdullah backing off from such an objective – when there is a Chief Justice who has pledged to clean up the judiciary?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 5:14 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sanctity of Parliament violated (2) – Mustapha roughed up (YouTube)

YouTube
 video of police roughing up and dragging away veteran PAS leader who was former Deputy Minister and MP, Mustapha Ali  when effecting arrest at Parliament precincts yesterday – another damning evidence of the violation of the sanctity of Parliament by the police and executive.

I told the police that what they had done was just wrong.  DAP MP for Ipoh Barat, M. Kulasegaran asked where was the court order justifying the police action, but the police refused to show such an order.

Mustapha was guest of PAS MP for Tumpat, Kamaruddin Jaffar but such niceties and courtesies mean nothing to the Police, as clearly shown by this video clip captured by Lim Swee Kuan.

Shame for Parliament! Shame for Malaysia!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 11:30 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sanctity of Parliament violated – Chin Huat sings Negaraku on arrest (YouTube)

YouTube video of police violation of sanctity of Parliament with unprecedented mass arrests of BERSIH activists  in parliamentary precincts yesterday, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007.

What was their crime?  For upholding the Malaysian Constitution for wanting to have free and fair elections?

Writers Alliance for Media Independence chairperson Wong Chin Huat  held up the Constitution and sang Negaraku when he was arrested by the Police in Parliament yesterday to tell the world that he committed no crime except for his love for the country and to protect and promote the Malaysian Constitution.

See this most touching and memorable episode captured for posterity by Lim Swee Kuan in
YouTube
.

Also arrested at the same time as Chin Huat were Suaram executive director Yap Swee Seng, Centre for Independent Journalism executive director V Gayathry (both on
YouTube
) and  Pusat Komas programme director Mien Lor.

DAP MPs Chong Eng (Bukit Mertajam), Fong Kui Lun (Bukit Bintang), M. Kulasegaran (Ipoh Barat), Chow Kon Yeow (Tanjong), Fong Pokuan (Batu Gajah), Lim Hock Seng (Bagan), Chong Chien Jen (Bandar Kuching)  and I were taking the four for lunch outside Parliament when the police swooped and intercepted them while in parliamentary precincts as if they were “top villains” of the country!

Shame for Parliament! Shame for Malaysia!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 8:18 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zaki should support Chief Justice’s vow of “house-cleaning” of judiciary with three measures

The new Chief Justice of Malaysia Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad has made a courageous pledge of
“house-cleaning”
 of the judiciary after being sworn in as the highest judicial officer of the land.

Abdul Hamid is the first top judicial officer to admit to the rot in the judiciary which has plunged national and international confidence in the system of justice to the lowest point in the 50-year history of the nation, and the rot in the judicial system is most vividly described by the Chief Justice when he said:

“I am aware that this appointment is a heavy burden on me. It is more so when it happens at a very challenging time, that is, when public perceptions of the judiciary are disturbing, when the integrity of the courts in the administration of justice is doubted, when appointments and the behaviour of judges and their commitments in the discharge of their duties, are all being questioned.”

Describing the judiciary as the last frontier of a nation, he said : “When the people no longer have confidence in the courts, there will be chaos.

“The independence of the judiciary means giving decision in a case based on law and evidence adduced in court without being influenced or pressured by any party.”

I wish to express my full support to Abdul Hamid’s bold admission of the rot in the administration of justice and his vow to “house-clean” the judiciary.

I do not doube Abdul Hamid’s sincerity, honesty or seriousness of purpose. However, I am very pessimistic  at the prospect of success of such a “house-cleaning” by  Abdul Hamid for two reasons:

Firstly, Abdul Hamid will create history as the top judicial officer of the land who will serve for the shortest period, as he will be Chief Justice for only four months, reaching his retirement age by 18th April 2008, and even with a six-month extension till 18th October 2008, the longest period Abdul Hamid will serve as Chief Justice will be 10 months.

In fact, it is no exaggeration to describe Abdul Hamid as an “accidental Chief Justice” as the powers-that-be had never intended for him to become Chief Justice – and he would not have ascended to the highest judicial post in the country if not for a combination of unexpected events outside the control of the powers-that-be.

Secondly, will Abdul Hamid get full support from the full bench of judges at all three tiers of the judiciary, Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court, for a root-and-branch “house-cleaning” of the judiciary?

In urging judges to support his pledge of “house-cleaning”, Abdul Hamid said the independence of judges in the discharge of their duties come from within themselves and if they are firm, honest and clean, no one would dare to approach them to influence or buy them out.

He said: “But, if we ourselves go about lobbying for appointment as judges or to be promoted, then, we are the ones who have compromised the independence of the judiciary.’

He posed a very important question to the judges: “The question is, is our character strong enough?”

The rot in the administration of justice  and the crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary have a long and protracted history lasting 19 years.

Unless Abdul Hamid has the full support of the full bench of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court judges, the Chief Justice will have very little chance of success  in any “house-cleaning” and it will again be another tragic failure when one man is pitted against the system.

For this reason, all judges should give full support to the Chief Justice’s vow of “house-cleaning” and the strongest support should come from the No. 2 in the judiciary, the  new Court of Appeal President, Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi who should set an example of judicial accountability, transparency and integrity by taking three steps:

Firstly, declaring whether he is still an Umno member, and if he had resigned from Umno, when did he submit his resignation.

Secondly, make full public disclosure of all corporate interests particularly those involving Umno which he had relinquished on his  “triple-jump” appointment as Federal Court judge in September and quadruple-jump as Court of Appeal President.

Thirdly, announce what steps he would take to assure the nation  that he will be Court of Appeal President (and Chief Justice of Malaysia  next October as expected)  for all Malaysians and not for  Umno, and whether he would  recuse from all cases involving Umno corporate or political interests in view of his two-decade-long  association with Umno corporate and political interests whether as Court of Appeal President or Chief Justice from next October..

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 3:49 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Is PM AAB above the law?

by
Loh Meng Kow

According to Star, PM AAB commenting on the arrest of eight people, including four lawyers, for taking part in an illegal march here yesterday, and said:  Lawyers are not above the law.

Federal Constitution: Section 10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association has four clauses. It reads (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3), and (4)-

(a)	every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b)	all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c)	all citizens have the right to form associations.

Section 4. Supreme law of the Federation reads (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Section 27 of the police Act 1967, and section 141 of the penal code deal with assembly, and they can only provide guidelines on how assembly should be conducted. They cannot go against Section 10 (1) in making assembly illegal since that would be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore be void.

Just like clause (1) of Section 10 is subject to the restrictions imposed by clauses, 2, 3, and 4, the police could impose reasonable condition so that peaceably assembly without arms could be undertaken.

The police are to maintain peace and order, and the excuse that the assembly could inconvenience the public could not be used to prevent assembly. Instead it is the duty of the police to make arrangements so that the assembly could be carried out with the least disruption to the public.

It is in that spirit of allowing the police department to make preparations to ensure peaceably assembly and without arms that the Police Act 1967 provides Section 27 to deal with public assembly.

The topics and the contents of the assembly are not the responsibility of the police, and the persons responsible for requesting police permit are liable to observe the laws, and face prosecution accordingly where applicable.

The Police should not refuse permit for peaceably assembly, though it might have the authority to withdraw the permit when organizers fail to follow specific conditions for the assembly. It should be the authority of the Police Department to act based objectively on implementing Section 27 of the Police Act 1967.

PM AAB has declared all peaceable assemblies illegal. Is PM AAB above the law?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 December 2007, 12:26 am and is filed under
Letters
,
Local Goverment
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


ISA detention of Hindraf five most deplorable

The invocation of the Internal Security Act (ISA)  to arrest five Hindraf leaders is most deplorable and marks another violation of the pledge by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to promote democracy, uphold human rights and defend the rule of law.

This is because the infamous detention-without-trial Internal Security Act is the very antithesis of the rule of law.

The five detained under the ISA are P.  Uthayakumar, M Manoharan, R Kenghadharan,  V Ganabatirau and T Vasanthakumar.

If the government has clear and convincing evidence that the five had committed grave offences, they should be charged in court allowing them an open trial and an opportunity to defend themselves instead of being incarcerated under a regime where proof is not necessary at all.

The return of the ISA is another regression of Malaysia to the dark era of human rights violations which can only tarnish the country’s international reputation and image.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 December 2007, 5:38 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Its hard to listen to the people while you gas them in the face.

By

Farish A. Noor

Once in a blue moon, in the developing world there appears that rare sort of politician who claims that he wants to listen to the people and take them into account. Of course the sighting of these rare characters is greeted with some degree of elation and relief, a bit like witnessing a lunar eclipse or winning a small lottery: For the developing world is replete with arm-wielding, thug-hugging, testosterone-driven macho-types who often preach their gospel of governance with a club in one hand and the other poised on the trigger.

We have seen this sort of nasty governance in many a developing country: The riot police in South Korea used to have a smiley face on their riot shields, just to add insult to injury when they shot off their tear gas cannisters at point blank range. Indonesian security forces during the time of Suharto used to chat pleasantly with the locals over a cup of tea before they sent in bulldozers to flatten entire villages. Why, even the death squads of Saddam Hussein used to send a bill and invoice to the families of those whose members had been kidnapped and murdered at night.

But there is also that other type of soft authoritarian despot that many of us in the developing world are familiar with by now: These are the more media-savvy types who can at least tie a tie around their necks, feel comfortable in a suit, quote from a novel offhand, and smile at you. Then

they do things like place their citizens under detention without trial, have them arrested at dawn while they are asleep in their homes, manipulate the media and control every branch of the government from the legislature to the judiciary.

Looking at the developments in Malaysia of late, one might come to the conclusion that that is precisely the sort of soft authoritarianism that has come to roost. Over the past month the capital of Kuala Lumpur witnessed at least two mammoth demonstrations in a country where the national pastime seems to be shopping: The first was a march organised by the coalition of NGOs called ‘BERSIH’, that called for free and fair elections. The second was a large march organised by the Malaysian Hindu Action Rights Force (HINDRAF) that highlighted the plight of the millions of Malaysian Hindus who remain at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder in the country.

As expected, the Malaysian government’s reaction was to demonise the demonstrators, block the roads, call in the riot police and have the demonstrators arrested, chased and tear-gassed in the streets of the capital. Images of Malaysian citizens being doused by water sprays and gassed appeared instantaneously across the world courtesy of Youtube.com and other internet sites, and the happy fiction of Malaysia being the land of peace and plenty sank accordingly…

But what is most worrisome is the epistemic and cognitive dissonance between the actions of the state and its rhetoric. The administration of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi came to power on a huge mandate and riding on the promise that it would not only clean up the Malaysian political system but also initiate a series of reforms and listen to the people.

Now the last point is terribly important for many Malaysians have always felt that their opinions were of little worth in the eyes of the powers-that-be. The previous administration of Dr Mahathir Mohamad did little to cast any suspicions that it was remotely democratic, and Dr Mahathir even went as far as proclaim his own deep misgivings of democracy and reform. Badawi, on the other hand, tapped into the frustrations of the Malaysians and promised them an outlet by stating that he would take them into account and listen to them.  But what has been the result?

It could be argued that the two massive demonstrations witnessed in the streets of Kuala Lumpur were precisely instances of public communication. One doesn’t have to be a scholar of semantics or semiotics to see that expressions of public distrust and anger in the public domain is a case of public communication at its most explicit. These were instances of Malaysians saying to the government and to Badawi in particular: “You promised us reforms, but you have not delivered. Now we are excercising our fundamental right to complain.”

But the complaints of the Malaysians were stiffled and silenced by the police sirens and the popping of tear gas cannisters in the streets. Its difficult for any leader to listen to the people when he is gassing them at the same time. Its equally difficult for there to be any meaningful dialogue between the state and the population when the latter are demonised as anarchists, unpatriotic trouble-makers, foreign agents, etc as soon as they show the slightest signs of protest.

So what gives? Prime Minister Badawi had appealed to the Malaysian public to give him time, feedback and support. The demonstration of frustration and the demand for reform happen to be precisely the sort of feedback he needs at the moment, one could argue. Yet Badawi’s reaction on the eve of the Bersih demonstration was to threaten the demonstrators with arrest and to state bluntly that he will not be challenged. Is this the real face of the benevolent administration that came to the power on the promise that the leader would listen to the Malaysian public, and which asked Malaysians to ‘work with me, and not for me’?

The developing world is facing numerous structural, institutional and social-normative challenges at the moment. Yet the pace of globalisation will not falter nor rest, and it is imperative that developing countries and their governments adapt to the realities of our times, living as we do in a

globalised world where the images of riot police shooting and beating demonstrators – as recently happened in Burma – will be on the internet in minutes, if not seconds. Yet developing countries like Burma and Malaysia, as well as Zimbabwe and many others, continue to labour under regimes that have not only lost touch but have been left so far behind. Yet another thuggist James Bond villian for a leader the developing world does not need. And that’s what the people are saying in the streets while they are being gassed by their benevolent, smiling leaders.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 December 2007, 11:29 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Farish Noor
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Legal challenge to declare court order which barred  Bersih activists and public from Monday Parliament null and void

I have filed an application in the Kuala Lumpur High Court to challenge the legality of the court order obtained by the police barring Bersih activists and the public from Parliament on Monday, 11th December 2007 as null and void.

Karpal Singh is assisted by M. Kulasegaran in preparing the  writ of summons  in the case Lim Kit Siang vs OCPD  Sentul, Inspector-General of Police  and the  Malaysian Government.  My statement of claim, filed with the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday, follows:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1.	The plaintiff is a Malaysian citizen of age and at all material times, Opposition leader, Dewan Rakyat and Member of Parliament (Ipoh Timur).

2.	The first defendant is the OCPD, Sentul.

3.	The second defendant is the Inspector General of Police.

4.	The third defendant is the Government of Malaysia and the plaintiff pleads that at all material times, the first and second defendants were the agents and/or servants of the third defendant which  is vicariously liable for the acts and/or omissions of the first and second defendants.

5.	The plaintiff pleads that at the commencement of the 11th Parliament in May 2004, the following motion was unanimously approved by the Dewan Rakyat:-

“Bahawa Majlis ini memerintahkan Ketua Polis Negara menjaga supaya selama Penggal Dewan Rakyat yang ada sekarang, jalan-jalan melalui lorong-lorong menuju ke Dewan ini hendaklah senantiasa terbuka dan boleh dilalui dan jangan ada apa-apa halangan menghalang ahli-ahli hendak pergi dan balik dari Dewan ini, jangan berlaku apa-apa kacau-bilau di jalan-jalan menuju ke Dewan ini, dan supaya jangan ada huru-hara di Bangunan Dewan ini dan berhampiran dengan bangunan ini; dan Setiausaha Dewan Rakyat hendaklah menyampaikan perintah ini kepada Ketua Polis Negara yang tersebut itu.” (‘the said directive of the Dewan Rakyat’)

6.	The plaintiff pleads by the said directive of the Dewan Rakyat, the second defendant was required by law  to ensure, inter alia, all police personnel in his command were prohibited from in any way causing a disturbance within the precincts of the Dewan Rakyat.

7.	The ex-parte order obtained by the first defendant under section 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code vide Criminal Application No. 89-0293-07 at the Magistrates Court, Kuala Lumpur dated the 10th of December, 2007 (‘the said order’) purportedly prohibiting the respondents i.e. Dr. Syed Azman Bin Syed Ahmad, Mohamad Bin Sabu, Syed Shahrir Bin Syed Mohamud, Adnan Saad and ‘Mana-mana orang yang berkenaan’ is vague in import and substance and the said order to the best of the plaintiff’s knowledge, having been issued on the 10th of December, 2007 could not have been gazetted by the 11th of December, 2007 as required by section 90(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which requires publication of the said  order in the Gazette and a copy of same being posted at such place as may be fittest for conveying the information to the first, second, third and fourth respondents and anybody else connected therewith. A copy of the said order was posted along the road leading to the entrance of the Dewan Rakyat. The infringement of the provisions of section 90(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code renders the said order invalid. Further, the fifth respondent being designated as ‘mana-mana orang yang berkenaan’ is in the said order referred to as ‘mana-mana penyokong BERSIH’ which also renders the said order invalid and of no effect.

8.	The plaintiff pleads one Dato’ Mustafa Ali together with the Democratic Action Party (‘DAP’) Member of Parliament for Seputeh, Theresa Kok and 6 other activists from BERSIH, a coalition for clean and fair elections, at a press conference in the lobby of Parliament, distributed memorandum entitled ‘SAY NO TO THE “SAVE RASHID” AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION’ dated the 11th of December, 2007 to Members of Parliament including the plaintiff.

9.	The said Dato’ Mustafa Ali and the 6 activists from BERSIH were lawfully at the lobby of Parliament after having been cleared at the police roadblock outside the road leading to the gate of Parliament.

10.	The plaintiff pleads all the said 6 activists from BERSIH were detained at the Parliament car park and taken to the Kuala Lumpur Contingent Police Headquarters and released at 4 pm after having been held there for 2 hours. The said Dato’ Mustafa Ali was also arrested as he was leaving the entrance to Parliament House without being assigned any reason for having been arrested. All 6 activists from BERSIH and the said Dato’ Mustafa Ali were unconditionally released the same day.

11.	The plaintiff pleads as Opposition leader, he was duty-bound in the public interest to ensure Dato’ Mustafa Ali and the said 6 activists who had been given clearance to enter Parliament House were not in any way subjected to arrest while leaving the precincts of Parliament in keeping with said directive of the Dewan Rakyat.

12.	The plaintiff pleads he together with the opposition DAP members of Parliament met up with the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib, in his chambers to protest the arrests made which reflected adversely on the sanctity of Parliament. The said Speaker promised to take up the matter with the second defendant.

13.	As a result of the acts of the first and second defendants, the said directive of the Dewan Rakyat has been contravened.

14.	WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for the following orders:-

(i)	a declaration that the said order under the hand of Azniza Binti Mohd Ali, Magistrate, Kuala Lumpur in Criminal Application No. 89-0293-07 is null and void and of no effect;

(ii)	a declaration that the second defendant has through the acts of police personnel under his command contravened the said directive of the Dewan Rakyat;

(iii)	costs; and

(iv)	any other and/or further relief deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court.

Dated this 12th day of December, 2007.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 December 2007, 12:21 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia should consider not celebrating Merdeka Day and International New Year

by
Sagaladoola

I would like to refer to Malaysiakini reports :  (
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/75828
) ” Human Rights march : 5 lawyers arrested ” and ” PM warns public safety is top priority ” (
http://www5.malaysiakini.com/news/75876
). In the latter report, the PM apparently warned (according to Malaysiakini) “Public safety takes precedence over public freedom”.

I am not sure how our Prime Minister’s brain works but if Abdullah Ahmad Badawi thinks the International Human Rights Day celebration requires a permit and jeopardise the national safety, I would like to remind the police and him to consider banning the up-and-coming Hari Raya Haji, Christmas, Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Hari Raya Aidiladha and most important of all the 51st Merdeka Day in 2008.

Hearing so many calls from his government and himself on the possibility of using the Internal Security Act, I hope our PM is just joking to Malaysians. After all, from my understanding, less than 10 person coming together without a permit is already a gathering and if police has its way, those assembling can be under detention without trial.

International Human Rights Day is not a protest or having any intention to upset national security. It is an annual celebration to commemorate, to remind us, humans, of the freedom we are supposed to have. Similarly, Merdeka or Independence Day falling on 31st August 2008 is to remind Malaysians on the freedom that we have achieved and to commemorate the effort to gain Independence as a human right. If International Human Rights Day is considered to be unsafe, then perhaps, Merdeka Day should not be celebrated as well. There should be no marching. If 200 people walking on the street with some banners, without parang or guns for the 9th December 2007 celebration is considered not safe, it is in my opinion the 31st August celebration which has more number of people marching could be potentially dangerous to national security.

Maybe, Malaysians should reconsider celebrating the up-and-coming International New Year 2008 in places like KLCC or Bukit Bintang. If a small amount of people celebrating International Human Rights Festival 2007 in a less than 15 minutes walk require a permit, a bigger turnout of people watching fireworks will probably require permits especially if these places display big “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” banners.

It is certainly mind-boggling that the police force had rejected a permit requested by Bar Council to hold the Sunday event. It is mind-boggling that a lawyer can be arrested for stopping some outsider from taking down a banner in the Bar Council compound, of which he is working in. There is nothing seditious with the banners. It is perfectly strange, people having stroll (a basic human right) can be arrested as well. Maybe, the police force should enlighten the public on these matters. Otherwise, it would also be wise for police to reconsider giving any permit for Merdeka Day 2008, which is also a celebration of human rights.

Last but not least, Happy International Human Rights Day to all Malaysians. Good luck and wish you all the best !

Regards,

Sagaladoola

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 December 2007, 12:24 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Letters
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Urgent Parliament motion on Lingam Tape RCI  – unacceptable chairman and unsatisfactory terms of reference

I have today given notice to the Parliament Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah to move an urgent motion on Monday for a debate on the unacceptable chairman and unsatisfactory terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal.

My motion for an urgent debate reads:

“That the House gives leave to  Ketua Pembangkang YB Lim Kit Siang to adjourn the House under S.O. 18 (1) to discuss a definite matter of  urgent public importance –  the  Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Lingam Tape videoclip scandal announced by the Prime Minister on Wednesday.

“The  appointment of Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor as Chairman of RCI  into the Lingam Tape scandal and the commission’s restricted terms of reference are most disappointing  and a great letdown for Malaysians who had looked forward to a new page for Malaysia’s judiciary and administration of justice.

‘Haidar is clearly not acceptable or suitable to be Chairman of the RCI   into the Lingam Tape scandal  in view of his disgraceful  role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis  over the  sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and two Supreme Court judges, Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh – the ‘mother’ of a string  of judicial crisis in the past 19 years  which rocked the country with repeated  erosion and ravages of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

“It is most regrettable that eminent and credible Malaysians whose appointment would have enhanced public confidence in the RCI  had been omitted, such as  the  Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Dr. Nazrain Shah, former members of judiciary, Tun Dzaiddin, Shaikh Daud, N. H. Chan,  Visu Sinadurai and distinguished Malaysians like Tunku Aziz, Raja Aziz Addruse, Param Cumaraswamy, Yeo Yang Poh and  Chooi Mun Sou.

“Parliament must urgently debate the very restricted terms of reference of the RCI  so that  the once-in-a-generation golden opportunity should not be missed to put right what had been wrong and rotten with the system of justice for nearly two decades to restore confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.”

I call on all MPs,  including Barisan Nasional MPs, to give support for an emergency parliamentary debate  on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal on Monday.

It is imperative that the  Royal Commission of Inquiry should have  the widest  ambit to restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary – as the Royal Commission of Inquiry would then  be a great ally of  the new Chief Justice Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad who vowed to carry out a “house-cleaning” of the judiciary after being sworn in as the highest judicial officer of the land on Tuesday.

Abdul Hamid is the first top judicial officer to admit to the rot in the judiciary which has plunged national and international confidence in the system of justice to the lowest point in the 50-year history of the nation, and the rot in the judicial system is most vividly described by the Chief Justice when he said:

“I am aware that this appointment is a heavy burden on me. It is more so when it happens at a very challenging time, that is, when public perceptions of the judiciary are disturbing, when the integrity of the courts in the administration of justice is doubted, when appointments and the behaviour of judges and their commitments in the discharge of their duties, are all being questioned.”

Describing the judiciary as the last frontier of a nation, he said : “When the people no longer have confidence in the courts, there will be chaos.

“The independence of the judiciary means giving decision in a case based on law and evidence adduced in court without being influenced or pressured by any party.”

All MPs and Malaysians should give  full support to Abdul Hamid’s bold admission of the rot in the administration of justice and his vow to “house-clean” the judiciary.

I do not doubt Abdul Hamid’s sincerity, honesty or seriousness of purpose. However, I am very pessimistic  at any prospect of success of such a “house-cleaning” by  Abdul Hamid for two reasons:

Firstly, Abdul Hamid will create history as the top judicial officer of the land who will serve for the shortest period, as he will be Chief Justice for only four months, reaching his retirement age by 18th April 2008, and even with a six-month extension till 18th October 2008, the longest period Abdul Hamid will serve as Chief Justice will be 10 months.

In fact, it is no exaggeration to describe Abdul Hamid as an “accidental Chief Justice” as the powers-that-be had never intended for him to become Chief Justice – and he would not have ascended to the highest judicial post in the country if not for a combination of unexpected events outside the control of the powers-that-be.

Secondly, will Abdul Hamid get full support from the full bench of judges at all three tiers of the judiciary, Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court, for a root-and-branch “house-cleaning” of the judiciary?

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal can play an important role to assist the Chief Justice in “house-cleaning” of the judiciary to carry out a root-and-branch eradication of the rot in the system of justice  – but this is only possible if it has the widest ambit in its terms of reference to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary as well as having an impeccable composition of commissioners headed by a Chairman who could command instant confidence and even awe – which is the very reverse in  the case of  Haidar.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 13 December 2007, 11:30 am and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Special Complaints Commission – totally different creature and very negation of IPCMC proposal

The Special Complaints Commission proposed in the bill tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday  is a totally different creature from the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) and the very negation of the independent  external oversight agency for the police recommended by the Royal Police Commission.

No wonder the Chairman of the Royal Police Commission, Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah said yesterday that he was “very disappointed” as  the proposed Special Complaints Commission was not what the Royal  Police Commission had in mind. Dzaiddin described the Special Complaints Commission as “something entirely different from what we recommended”.

Another member of the Royal Police Commission, Tunku Abdul Aziz, former Transparency International Malaysia President,  is also a disappointed man.

He said:  “The whole purpose was to ensure that no only were the police protected against unfair criticism and allegations but also that there would be a return of public confidence in an organization that had lost it. If the new bill is watered down, obviously we are not going to achieve this purpose.”

How can the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Cabinet expect the 26 million Malaysians to have confidence in the proposed Special Complaints Commission when the leading lights of the Royal Police Commission like Tun Dzaiddin and Tunku Aziz are totally disgusted  by the breach of faith and  the  complete watering-down of the IPCMC proposal to produce something quite nonsensical?

For instance, the Royal Police Commission had proposed that IPCMC commissioners should not be serving or former members of the police force. But the whole idea of an independent external oversight mechanism to ensure that police officers keep to the straight and narrow path of the law, steering clear of abuses of power and corrupt practices, was overturned with the proposal that the Inspector-General of Police is a permanent member of the seven-man Special  Complaints Commission!

With the IGP as a permanent member of the Special Complaints Commission, how could the function of independent external oversight of the police from abuses of power and corruption be exercised?

Is the Prime Minister and Cabinet seriously suggesting that members of the public would have confidence to complain against top police officers or even against the IGP himself with the IGP as a member of the Special  Complaints Commission?

On initial cursory reading of the Special Complaints Commission Bill, it not only falls far short of the IPCMC proposal of the Royal Police Commission, it is so weak and flawed that it is most unacceptable if the government is serious about wanting to create an efficient, accountable, incorruptible and professional  world-class police service.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 14 December 2007, 11:23 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.