Campus elections – Mustapha should announce “hands-off” policy and scrap secret mission of VCs/DVCs

On Monday, the Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapha Mohamed said each public university will
decide
 on the suitable rules and requirements for the upcoming student elections.

He said:  “We are open to ideas and suggestions but there are all kinds of proposals so the universities themselves should be the ones looking into them.”

I call on  Mustapha to take the first bold step to give meaning and substance to the National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010  to start the long journey to make  Malaysia  a world leader in higher education by sending a clear message to all Vice Chancellors to hold free and fair campus elections in public universities and to respect and accept the election results.

Mustapha should publicly declare that as Higher Education Minister, he would not be partisan and would not take sides with any candidate or group of candidates contesting in the campus polls, and that he would fully accept the verdict of the campus elections regardless of who wins or loses, so long as the campus elections are held in a free and fair manner.

He  should announce a “hands-off” policy to ensure a vibrant, critical and creative student campus and scrap the  secret agenda of  Vice Chancellors and deputies to ensure victory of the compliant  “pro-establishment” student groups.

In this manner, university students would be given a good grounding and experience in the holding of an honest, free and fair elections and not be exposed instead in their first voting experience to  all the shenanigans, manipulation and abuses of  of rigged polls.

One important reason why Malaysian public universities had been on a downward plunge as centres of academic excellence is because it has been drummed into the Vice Chancellors and their deputies that it is more important for their career future that they deliver campus elections to pro-establishment student groups rather than ensuring that the universities achieve international recognition as world-class universities as receiving top rankings in world tables, such as the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University annual listing of top world universities.

This is why it is so shocking to read the statement by the Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) vice chancellor
Nik Mustapha R. Abdullah
 justifying the Mat Rempit arrogance and highhandedness of the  UPM campus security in seizing the laptop, mobile phone, MP3 player and 10 other items valued at RM6,000 from first-year UPM timber technology student Yee Yang Yang during a spot check of his hostel room on Friday night and questioning him about his involvement in student politics.

Recently, there had been a lot of talk by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Mustapha of the critical importance of higher education if the nation is to face up to the challenges of globalization and the national policy to benchmark Malaysian universities to international standards and the world’s top universities.

But the message about the urgent need for  a new higher education commitment which emphasizes quality, competitiveness, creativity and innovativeness seems to have escaped the ken of Vice Chancellors and their deputies in the public universities in the country.

Otherwise, a vice chancellor of one of the four research universities like the UPM would not have issued a statement like the one put out by Nik Mustapha yesterday, which would not have been issued by his counterpart in anyone of the world’s top universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale in the United States or Oxford, Cambridge and London as they would have been very ashamed by the statement’s  Gestapo connotations.

Does Nik Mustapha understand that UPM and the public universities in the country must create the environment for a vibrant, critical and creative student campus and stop all the past and present practices of stifling student activism?

In May this year, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said that according the International Advicory Panel (IAP) which  just had a meeting,  Malaysian students were  perceived to be “incurious”.

Najib said this was one of the few comments IAP members, many of whom renowned academicians and industry experts, made about Malaysian students during their deliberations.

Many IAP members found that Malaysian students lack a “questioning culture” and are too passive. “They also lack questioning skills, are not too curious and too readily accept facts told to them”. (The Star 22.5.07).

It is university administrators like Nik Mustapha who are responsible for straight-jacketting Malaysian students into such an incurious and unquestioning mould, making them and the nation totally unready and uncompetitive for the challenges of globalization.

I call on Mustapha to publicly make a personal commitment about the  change of priorities for all public universities in line with the  “Strategic Plan for Higher Education: Laying the Foundation Beyond 2020” launched by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at the end of last month that henceforth his overriding concern is not which candidate or coalition of student groups win campus elections but whether the public universities can achieve international recognition as world-class universities?

Let Mustapha set a good example and give a categorical assurance that no Vice Chancellor or Deputy Vice Chancellor would be penalized because  of the outcome of campus elections, as the major criteria in reviewing their performance would be on  their leadership ability to put the universities on the world map of internationally-renowned universities.

If the authorities are prepared to impose unfair and undemocratic rules and regulations to manipulate the outcome of  campus elections,  who will believe that the government will be honest to  hold free and fair elections at the national level for Parliament and the formation of the national government?

Mustapha should ensure that the university campus elections this year will be free and fair to herald a vibrant, critical and creative student campus in the public universities.

He should invite Suhakam to advise all public universities to draw up free and fair campus election guidelines and invite the Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights and Good Governance to monitor the campus election in all the public universities.

[The Malaysiakini report on Nik Mustapha’s statement follows:]

UPM VC defends seizure of student’s laptop

Sep 18, 07 8:24pm

Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) vice-chancellor Nik Mustapha R Abdullah today defended the action of campus authorities in seizing a student activist’s laptop and 12 other items during a spot check on his hostel room.

In a two-page media statement (see below), Nik Mustapha (left) said the student, Yee Yang Yang, was suspected of having leaflets produced by ‘unregistered’ organisations and that his laptop contained pornographic material.

He said the authorities acted according to procedure and described Yee’s accusation that UPM was attempting to intimidate him due to his involvement in student activism as a “lie.”

“The action taken by the UPM security department was in accordance with the rules and regulations that relate to disciplinary violations made by Yee. His accusations are lies,” said the VC.

He said on Sept 14, the security department was notified by the Students Supreme Council (MTM) and Dorm 13 of a spate of mobile phone thefts in the dorm.

They had asked the security department to conduct a room-to-room search in Block C, 13th College where Yee (right) was staying.

“It was during this search that we found leaflets, donation cards and other documents belonging to an unregistered organisation. This was in violation of Article 12(1) of the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) 1971,” said Nik Mustapha.

The VC added that Yee’s actions had also violated UPM’s student disciplinary guidelines which prohibited the publication, printing or distribution of leaflets without the university’s approval.

“Furthermore, Yee said that he lost his matrix card and the laptop in his room was not his. He also said that the battery of the laptop had died. But when the security personnel checked, his matrix card was with him and his laptop functioned well,” he said.

Pornographic material

Nik Mustapha argued that since Yee had lied about his matrix card and laptop, security personnel had good reasons to be suspicious and to confiscate the student’s laptop, pen-drive, MP4 player, CDs, mobile phone and the leaflets.

He also claimed that Yee had agreed to have these items brought to the security department.

According to the security department, that upon checking the laptop, a vast amount of pornographic material were found and this was in violation of Article 19(1) of the UUCA.

Nik Mustapha said on Sept 15, Yee and a group of students had gathered at the security department’s office and demanded that his belongings be returned.

“When the staff there told him that investigations were ongoing and his belongings could not be returned as yet, the group acted aggressively and obstructed the officers from performing their duty,” he added.

There was a tense stand-off between the students and Zamali Samsi, the head of the university’s Special Task Unit, a student-monitoring outfit which is part of the campus security.

The students stood in front and the back of the vehicle carrying Zamali to stop him from leaving until they got their letter of acknowlegement listing out the items that were taken from Yee. [see video]

According to the VC, the student affairs department is currently investigating the matter.

Yee had previously claimed that the university authorities had acted against him because of his involvement in the ‘opposition’ camp.

Rival students groups – known as anti-establishment and pro-government factions – are already in the midst of campaign preparations for the soon to be held campus polls.

Last year, the anti-establishment group – who are generally regarded to be pro-opposition – had boycotted the election.

—————————————————————

Kenyataan Media Naib Canselor UPM

17 September 2007

Kami mendapat maklum tersebarnya dalam media tertentu dakwaan seorang pelajar UPM bahawa pihak keselamatan universiti memecah masuk ke bilik asramanya pada 14 September 2007 dan merampas komputer riba serta lain-lain barangan milik beliau. Dakwaan seterusnya dibuat bahawa tindakan ini diambil pihak universiti untuk menakut-nakutkan pelajar berjelang pilihanraya kampus yang akan diadakan tidak lama lagi.

Berdasarkan siasatan yang dijalankan, UPM ingin menegaskan bahawa dakwaan ini adalah tidak benar. Tindakan pihak keselamatan UPM adalah wajar dan berlandaskan peraturan berkaitan pelanggaran tatatertib oleh pelajar tersebut. Kronologi kejadian adalah seperti berikut:

1. Pada 14 September 2007, Bahagian Keselamatan UPM mendapat panggilan daripada Majlis Tertinggi Mahasiswa (MPM) dan felo Kolej 13 berhubung beberapa kes kecurian komputer riba dan telefon bimbit yang berlaku di kolej tersebut. Penghuni kolej resah dan bimbang kerana telah berlaku lapan kejadian kecurian. Justeru, MPM dan felo kolej mohon kerjasama pihak keselamatan UPM untuk mengadakan pemeriksaan bilik ke bilik di Blok C kolej 13.

2. Semasa mencari komputer riba dan telefon bimbit yang hilang di bilik 505 blok tersebut, pegawai keselamatan menemui pelbagai risalah yang dicetak untuk edaran, kad kutipan wang dan lain-lain dokumen. Penghuni bilik ini ialah pelajar bernama Yee Yang Yang. Beliau tidak mengakui komputer riba di bilik tersebut adalah miliknya. Beliau juga berkata bahawa kad matriknya hilang dan komputer riba itu tidak boleh digunakan kerana kehabisan bateri.

3. Semasa disoal, pegawai keselamatan mendapati Yee ada menyimpan kad matriknya dan komputer riba boleh berfungsi. Oleh kerana ada unsur pembohongan, pegawai keselamatan mempunyai asas meragui tindakan Yee, maka pelajar itu dimaklumkan bahawa risalah, kumputer riba, pendrive, MP4 player, software, CD, dan telefon bimbit jenis Nokia N73 miliknya akan dibawa ke Bahagian Keselamatan sebagai bahan bukti untuk siasatan lanjut. Yee bersetuju dan memberi kebenaran kepada pegawai keselamatan berbuat demikian.

4. Siasatan Bahagian Keselamatan mendapati bahawa risalah yang dijumpai dalam bilik Yee dicetak oleh persatuan yang tidak berdaftar. Komputer ribanya juga mengandungi banyak bahan lucah. Perkara 12 (1) Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti 1971, kaedah-kaedah UPM (Tatatertib Pelajar-pelajar) tidak membenarkan pelajar menerbit, mencetak atau mengedar risalah, dokumen atau bahan bercetak tanpa kelulusan pihak berkuasa universiti. Yee juga telah berlanggar Perkara 19 (1) akta tersebut, kerana memiliki dan menyimpan bahan atau artikel lucah semasa dalam kampus.

5. Keesokannya,15 September 2007, Yee dan sekumpulan pelajar datang ke Bahagian Keselamatan untuk mendapatkan kembalii barang barang beliau. Beliau diberitahu bahawa barang-barang tersebut tidak dapat dikembalikan kerana siasatan masih berjalan. Mereka mempertikai keputusan ini dan bertindak liar dengan menghalang pegawai keselamatan menjalankan tugas dan menahan kenderaan rasmi Unit Khas milik universiti daripada bergerak.

6. Kes ini masih disiasat dan telah dibawa ke Bahagian Hal Ehwal Pelajar. Jelas terdapat pelanggaran disiplin dan tatatertib oleh pelajar ini, dan pihak universiti perlu mengambil tindakan sewajarnya. UPM sentiasa menggarapkan suasana hidup yang harmoni dan perpaduan yang kukuh bukan sahaja di kalangan pelajar, tetapi juga di antara pelajar dengan staf.

Naib Canselor

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Serdang, Selangor

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 19 September 2007, 9:39 am and is filed under
Education
,
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.


Lingam tape – letter  to PM to suspend Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice and to establish judicial tribunal

I have  written to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi asking him to invoke Article 125 of the Constitution to suspend Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice and  to establish a judicial tribunal to investigate the serious allegations of judicial misconduct against him  as highlighted by the
Lingam tape
 made public by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yesterday.

In my letter, I quoted Article 125(3)  which reads:

“125 (3).  If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the Yang di Pertuan Agong that a judge of the Federal Court ought to be removed on the ground of any breach of any provision of the code of ethics prescribed under Clause (3A) or on the ground of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office, the Yang di Pertuan Agong shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with Clause (4) and refer the representation to it; and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.”

The Lingam tape has sparked the  latest crisis of confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary stemming from grave judicial misconduct.

As the allegations of judicial misconduct are of very grave character affecting the perversion of justice, I also asked the Prime Minister to invoke  Article 125(5) which  reads:

“125(5), Pending any reference and report under Clause (3) the Yang di Pertuan Agong may on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and, in the case of any other judge after consulting the Chief Justice, suspend a judge of the Federal Court from the exercise of his functions.”

I said in my letter to Abdullah that with the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice, concerted efforts must be made to restore public confidence in the independence, impartiality, professionalism and integrity of the judiciary.

I also stressed that the time has not only come for the establishment of a Judicial Appointments and Promotion Commission to assist the Prime Minister to ensure an accountable, transparent and meritorious appointment and promotion of judges but also for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to propose institutional reforms to ensure that Malaysians enjoy  a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law.

Under Article 125(4), a judicial tribunal “shall consist of not less than five persons who hold or have held office as judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court or, if it appears to the Yang di Pertuan Agong expedient to make such appointment, persons who hold or have held equivalent office in any other part of the Commonweatlh, and shall be presided over by the member first in the following order, namely, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President and the Chief Judges according to their precedence among themselves, and other members according to the order of their appointment to an office qualifying them for membership”.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 September 2007, 12:18 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Constitution
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysian consulate service a letdown

by
Disappointed Malaysian

I am writing from Melbourne, Australia as I am frustrated with the services and support provided by the Malaysian Consulate in Canberra, Australia. My family have had the unfortunate incident of having our house burglarised and all (the entire family’s) our documents ie, Malaysian passports, birth certificates, Malaysian driving licences, our MyKads, marriage certificates have all been stolen.

We immediately reported the incident to the Malaysian Consulate in Canberra and was passed on to the person in-charge, a Mr Haa Doan. He must be the most unpleasant person we have come across and encountered during our stay in Australia so far. We told him our circumstances and asked him for the procedure to apply for a replacement travel document and he advised that he will immediately send us the necessary application forms.

We supplied him with our correspondence address and contact details. He then reprimanded us for the way we kept our documents at home which was uncalled for. He kept insisting that we have to fly back to Malaysia to reapply for all our documents but how could we when we have just lost our passports?

The documents came only four weeks later and we sent off our completed forms and the necessary certified documents. On Sept 13, we decided to check with the Malaysian Consulate on the status of our application. My husband who called was told that Haa was on leave. My husband was not happy and called again, and this time was told that Haa was not on leave and the call was passed to him.

He was very annoyed with my husband and irritated when asked about the status of our applications. He said it is still with him in his office which meant that the applications have been sitting at the consulate for more than a month. He said he was sick and that he just returned from back to work. The question is does the consulate stop functioning because Haa is on sick leave? Is there no one to take over his responsibility when he is away from the office?

When my husband asked why wasn’t it sent off to the Immigration Department in Kuala Lumpur, he said that they do not do daily postings to Malaysia and that it was done only once a month! Asked how long will the whole process take, Haa said that he was not sure, maybe it would be six months or more and that it was entirely up to the Kuala Lumpur Immigration Office.

These kind of answers are definitely not reassuring for a whole family who is at their wits end at having lost all their critical documents. The passports are required to fly back to Malaysia to reapply for the other documents and looks like we are at a loss as to when we will get our passports approved or when they finally make their way back to the Kuala Lumpur Immigration Office. Is Australia so distant that there is only one mail service a month?

The next critical question is has the consulate reported the loss of our passports to the Malaysian Immigration so that there is a record that our passports have been reported stolen and in the event of unlawful use, they will be able to put a stop to it.

We in Australia feel very sad with the support given by the Malaysian Consulate. Aren’t they there to give us the very support we need in a foreign country in times of need. Can someone from Putrajaya please help us out on this critical issue? We are getting nowhere with Haa at the Malaysian Consulate in Canberra.

The one in Perth wrote :

A friend of our family have the misfortune of losing his passport and various other important documents while in Perth, Western Australia. His case, however, was handled most efficiently and professionally by Malaysian High Commission and he got his temporary traveling document issued to fly back to Malaysia and then got everything else done while back here.

We hope that the Embassy staff in Canberra will look into the matter.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 September 2007, 4:38 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Letters
,
public service
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Adventure in Canberra

Y.W.Loke emailed me:

Regarding

“Malaysian consulate service a letdown”
, which
“Disappointed Malaysian”
sent to you as well as to Malaysiakini, there was another letter to M’kini [copied below] which described an entirely different experience involving the consulate in Canberra, and in particular, Mr Haa.

Perhaps you may want to include that letter in your blog posting to offer another viewpoint for your readers to consider.

LETTERS: Adventure in Canberra

CL Yee  Sep 19, 07 4:58pm

I refer to the Malaysiakini letter Malaysian consulate service a letdown. I share similar feelings as the writer about the inefficiency of their service generally. However, I had a different experience in dealing with Mr Haa, as I would refer to him.

I was a Malaysian student living in South Australia when I had my first personal encounter with the Malaysian consulate in Canberra to which I had to go to have my expired Malaysian passport renewed. Prior to coming to the office in person, I have made several telephone calls to the office.

A lot of the times, the calls went unanswered. When they did get through, I found myself talking to a female staff who was in my view was rude. Her English also left a lot to be desired. She boldly told me to come into the office in person and hung up.

Before that she gave me a list of all the documents I needed to have with me, or so I thought. I made an appointment for 9am the following Wednesday and was warned that the passport renewal could only be done between 9am to 10am. Unbelievable, isn’t it?

I flew in that day and was shocked when Mr Haa, who attended to me, said I needed a Proof of Residency certificate from the Australian Immigration to show that I was not at the time an Australian citizen. I told him my situation – I had just flown in and being my first time in Canberra, I did not know the place and that I needed my passport the same day because I was flying back to Adelaide that evening.

He then provided me with directions and assured me he would still process my application even if it was after 10am when I got the certificate. I had an opportunity to chat with him when I returned with the certificate. Turned out that he was originally Vietnamese, now an Australian and had been working for the Malaysian consulate for over 14 (or was it 20?) years.

Mr Haa told me to return at 4pm to collect my passport so off I went visiting the city, its university campus and the museum. Just before I left, I met another Malaysian lady from Melbourne who had lost her passport and had been left without one for three years. The consulate staff had not been helpful until she sought help from her employer who knew which strings to pull before the consulate promised that when she came in for second time, her passport would be ready.

Anyway, I called a cab at 3pm and waited until about 4.30pm before realising it would never turn up. I was in the most panicky situation I ever had in my life. It did not help that there was no one nearby. It did not help that my mobile phone battery went flat. I felt like crying.

Out of nowhere, I saw an elderly Australian couple walking towards their car and I asked them if they could give me a ride to the consulate. They shoved me into the passenger seat and later told me that taxis are most unreliable on a Wednesday afternoon because of the Parliament sittings. They refused to accept a fare and quickly drove off to pick up their grandchildren from school.

I arrived at the consulate at 5pm when Mr Haa was about the close the door. I related that I was going to be late for my flight if I could not get a taxi. He passed me my new passport and rushed me to the nearest taxi range in his car. It was an act of kindness totally beyond his line of duty.

I was, nevertheless, late for my flight and missed it. It happened that the Malaysian lady I met earlier at the consulate had also missed her flight. She offered to pay for my accommodation for the night as I could not afford to. I declined the invitation as I needed to be at the airport at 4.30am. Concerned about my safety, she decided to stay at the airport with me.

For the first time in my life, I slept on the street (the airport has to be vacated by 10pm) on a cold, rainy, autumn night. It was indeed a trip I would never forget. That day, three complete strangers touched my heart.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2007, 6:41 am and is filed under
public service
. 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 comments on Lingam Tape outrageous –  is he for judicial independence, integrity, accountability?

The comments by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail that “no criminal offence appears to have been committed” in the Lingam Tape and that senior lawyer V.K.Lingam “was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear who he was talking to”
(New Straits Times)
were most outrageous and raise important  questions, viz:

	his understanding of and commitment to judicial independence, integrity and accountability; and

	his fitness to continue as Attorney-General.

How can the chief legal officer of the government try to minimize the gravity of the judicial misconduct exposed by the Lingam Tape and  shirk off his responsibility by claiming that Lingam was in a monologue as “There is no clear reference that he was talking to a top judicial officer”, when Anwar Ibrahim’s allegation that Lingam was talking to Chief Justice  Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim sometime in 2002 when he was Chief Judge of Malaya was corroborated by the contents of the conversation?

Forty-eight  hours have passed and neither Ahmad  Fairuz nor Lingam had denied that there was such a telephone  conversation between them, which would be the first reaction of anyone to a doctored video clip.

Ahmad Fairuz was contacted the same afternoon of Wednesday when Anwar made public the video recording, but his personal assistant relayed the message that the Chief Justice wanted to have a look at the video before saying anything.  But Ahmad Fairuz had been in ex communicado in the past two days, although he would have no difficulty in accessing it on the Internet, as it was put up on Malaysiakini almost instantly the same day (recording over 4,000 hits since), as well as on many blogs and the Bar Council website.   One  Youtube site which uploaded the clip registered 23,150 hits in one day.

The silence of Lingam cannot be explained by the  claim that he is overseas, particularly in  the present  era of 24/7 and  instant communications when information travels at  the speed of light and denials could be made instantly  from any part of the globe.

It is also most noteworthy that Gani had not challenged the authenticity of the video recording of the telephone conversation.

From the contents, the conversation would probably be January 2002 for the following reasons:

	Ahmad Fairuz was referred to as “Datuk”  and there was talk of getting a “Tan Sri”-ship for him  the same year. Ahmad Fairuz was awarded the Panglima Setia Mahkota (P.S.M) by the Yang di Pertuan Agong during the King’s  birthday in June 2002, making him a Tan Sri.

	There was reference of making “Datuk Heliliah, Datuk Ramli and Datuk Maroop” as judges — on 8th February 2002, Datuk Heliliah Mohd Yusuf, former Solicitor-General, Datuk Ramly Ali, a former Chief Registrar and Datuk Ahmad Maarop, a former Commissioner of Law Revision, received their letters of appointment as High Court judges from the Yang di Pertuan Agong.  Their appointments were from Feb. 1, 2002.

	There was reference that “in three months time” Ahmad Fairuz would be made President of Court  of Appeal and “six months time” he was going to be Chief Justice –  Ahmad Fairuz was sworn in as President, Court of Appeal on Dec. 1, 2002 and appointed Chief Justice of Malaysia on March 17, 2003.

When Gani said that “no criminal offence appears to have been committed’ in the Lingam Tape, may be he should explain what crimes were committed by Tun Salleh Abas to be sacked as Lord President and by Datuk Seri George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh to be dismissed as Supreme Court judges in the dark days of Malaysian judiciary in 1988?

Five charge, running into 12 sheets of paper and nearly 1,700 words were levelled  against Salleh Abas.  Can Gani state  what were the charges against Salleh  in the shameful travesty of justice which precipitated the fall from grace of the Malaysian judiciary which could be termed “criminal”?

What is mind-boggling is that the Attorney-General, who had clearly viewed the Lingam Tape, should  be so complacent as to find nothing improper or offensive in it  and cannot see the  grave judicial misconduct crying out for attention and   which have plunged the country into the latest chapter of a long catalogue of crisis of confidence in the judiciary  in the past two decades since the 1988 Judicial Onslaught.

How is it that Malaysia, which claims to want to be a first-world nation to face up to the challenges of globalization, is having an Attorney-General who seems to be oblivious of  the importance of the principles of judicial independence, integrity and accountability and the various international statements and declarations on them, such as:

(1)	The Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region 1995 which among other things declared:

	Judges shall uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary by avoiding impropriety in all their activities.

	To enable the Judiciary to achieve its objectives and perform its functions, it is essential that judges be chosen on the basis of proven competence, integrity and independence.

(2)	The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002 which states, among other things:

	A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach  in the view of a reasonable observer.

	The behaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

If the Attorney-General assumes the stance that no criminal offence is disclosed in the Lingam Tape and that it was only a monologue of Lingam, totally disregarding the fact that it has done more than any other event  in the four-year Abdullah premiership to destroy the myth that the country is making progress towards a system of justice where there is a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law, how can Malaysians expect the Prime Minister to get  proper and quality  legal advice from the chief legal officer of the government on what he should do for the good of the country and future generations?

Instead of one scandal over the Lingam Tape, is the country getting a double whammy with another  value-added scandal of an  Attorney-General who refuses to see or  lift his finger to save the country from the latest crisis of confidence in the judiciary in the country?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2007, 12:00 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
. 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 Report – why the thunderous post-Cabinet silence?

Why the thunderous post-Cabinet silence over the 2006 Auditor-General’s Report — and  does it signify the end of the three-day wonder of  thunder-and-lightning in the media over abuses and mismanagement of public funds until next year’s Auditor-General’s Report?

Two Tuesdays ago, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that he had directed all Ministers at the Cabinet meeting on Sept. 5  to go through the Auditor-General’s Report in detail and to fully explain mismanaging funds and other irregularities in their respective ministries.

Last Thursday, Abdullah said the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) should step in and investigate any suspicion of corruption in ministries and government agencies implicated in the Auditor-General’s Report 2006.

When was the Cabinet meeting for the Ministers to explain in detail the strictures of the Auditor-General against their respective ministries?

I had expected some announcement after this Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting on the outcome of the Prime Minister’s directive to all Ministers, but there is only thunderous silence.

Have all the Ministers been given a reprieve from having to personally account to the Cabinet for all the public fund mismanagement and irregularities in their ministries as revealed by the Auditor-General’s Report; and if not, why is there no public accounting from the Prime Minister as to any outcome?

For instance, what is the explanation from the UMNO Youth leader and Education Minister  Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein on the mismanagement of public funds of over RM285 million in the Ministry of Youth and Sports when he was the Minister from 1999 to 2004?

It is no use Hishammuddin making brave statements in public that “I’ve nothing to hide” and calling for thorough investigations into the  misuse of funds by the Youth and Sports Ministry when up to now he has failed to give any satisfactory explanation for such colossal waste of public funds as the Minister in charge.

It is quite a farce for Ministers to only now go through the Auditor-General’s Report so as to explain the public fund mismanagement and irregularities, for the Auditor-General Tan Sri Ambrin Buang had confirmed that before he signed off his report on 28th June 2007, all Ministries had been given advance notice of his comments and criticisms for their confirmation — providing them with a final opportunity for rectification or explanation.

This would mean that as of the present date, all ministries would have known  of  the Auditor-General’s Report for some three to four months.  Why should Ministers be unready to give full and satisfactory explanation whether to Cabinet, Parliament or the Malaysian public for the many horror stories about corruption, abuses of power and mismanagement of public funds, like paying RM224 for a set of RM40 screwdrivers, RM5,700 for a RM50 car jack and RM1,146 for a RM160 pen set (all in the Ministry of Youth and Sports).

The Prime Minister must not allow the Ministers to sweep the 2006 Auditor-General’s Report under the carpet until next year.

Abdullah must set the example for all Cabinet Ministers by announcing that he would appear before the Public Accounts Committee to account for the public funds mismanagements highlighted by the Auditor-General’s Report for the Ministries of Finance and Internal Security — and that all Cabinet Ministers are to follow suit to appear before the PAC to give full meaning to his pledge of accountability, Ministerial responsibility  and the National Integrity Plan which he launched in May 2004.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2007, 3:23 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


E-government to e-scam – Kong Choy should publicly justify  e-Kesihatan

Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy should fully explain  the second scandal since he became Transport Minister — the e-Kesihatan scandal which is also the latest example of e-government in Malaysia degenerating into e-scams.

The first scandal during Chan’s stewardship as Transport Minister is the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal, for which a full and proper accounting has still to be furnished by him.

Although the Cabinet on Wednesday decided to postpone the eKesihatan health screening of commercial drivers to enable the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) to co-ordinate the implementation of the programme, what are exactly the implications of the Cabinet decision.

Does it mean that the RM450 million 15-year  eKesihatan middleman concession to centralize the health screening of commercial drivers, scheduled to begin on Oct. 1, had been merely postponed with the  monopoly position of Supremme Systems Sdn. Bhd. basically unaffected or could the whole concession monopoly be scrapped?

And in the latter, would Supremme Systems be compensated  a substantial amount resulting in a “heads I will, tail you lose” situation for the company at the expense of the taxpayers, as had happened in the past like the Johore Baru crooked half-bridge cancellation, where the contractor Gerbang Perdana Sdn. Bhd had been paid compensation of RM257.4 million, although the government had earlier computed a RM100 million compensation!

Chan should make  public the full details of the eKesihatan contract which  had been signed between the Road Transport Department and Suprmme Systems Sdn. Bhd, whether the Transport Ministry had fully committed the government to compensate Supremme Systems for delays in implementing the eKesihatan scheme, like the postponement decided by the Cabinet on Wednesday.

After the shocking disclosures of pervasive mismanagement of public funds in the 2006 Auditor-General’s Report and the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal caused by the Transport Minister unlawfully committing the government to stand guarantee for RM4 billion bonds issued by a private company developing the PKFZ, Malaysians are entitled to demand higher standards of accountability to avoid  repetition of the same mistakes in the Transport Ministry  and the continued  mismanagement of public funds.

Chan should also clarify many public interest issues and questions swirling round the e-Kesihatan controversy, particularly the rationale for a middleman rent-seeking scam which will net the concessionaire RM30 million profit a year or RM450 million for the 15-year concession in introducing a new mandatory health screening scheme for commercial drivers.

Chan should also address very serious allegations against the e-Kesihatan scheme concerning integrity and conflict of interest.

As
New Straits Tim
es report

“New twist in eKesihatan saga”
 revealed, a company that had bid for the project in February last year was rejected with the excuse that the project had already been awarded.

But Supremme Systems Sdn Bhd, whose director is a former Road Transport Department (RTD) director, only signed the contract this month, 20 months after the bid by the Primary Care Doctors’ Organisation Malaysia.

The letter that PCDOM submitted to the then RTD director-general Datuk Emran Kadir on Feb 24 last year contained a detailed outline of the suggested PrimaCare system.

The system is an award-winning electronic medical record and clinic management software that can be used under the eKesihatan programme.

A follow-up letter to the Transport Ministry on March 10 this year saw a reply a month later where they were told that another company had been chosen.

PCDOM president Dr Molly Cheah Bee Li said her organisation had not only created a computer-based version of the RTD health form, but had also come up with a new form based on a similar model used in the United Kingdom.

“All this was provided free of charge for RTD use,” she said, adding that the system would have been made available to all clinics free of charge as there were no licensing fees.

“The only cost would have been the cost of deployment, training, support and maintenance, which the doctors themselves would be reponsible for.

“Patients would have only had to pay RM5, for gateway charges and processing fees, on top of whatever medical fee the clinic charged.

Chan must explain why his Ministry and the Road Transport Department rejected the PCDOM proposal requiring RM5 as gateway charges in favour of the Supremme Systems’ e-Kesihatan imposing the exorbitant gateway charge of between RM30 — RM35 per person for the some one million applicants seeking renewal of commercial driving licensing a year.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2007, 1:51 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Health
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – why PM’s one-sided threat if not authentic but nothing about action to be taken if true?

The initial
one-sided response
of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to the Lingam Tape, which has plunged the country into a new crisis of confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity, accountability and professionalism of the Malaysian judiciary — both national and international — is a great disappointment compromising the neutrality and impartiality of his high office.

Abdullah said yesterday that he had directed the police to immediately start investigations into the Lingam Tape as  it was important to act quickly because the content of the clip could tarnish the image of the country’s judiciary.

He said: “We cannot treat this lightly. We will act fast to determine the truth.”

He said that if investigations revealed that the claims were false, action would be taken against those who were trying to undermine the judiciary as  the video recording would invoke public anger and hatred towards the judiciary.

He said at this juncture, the question of setting up a Commission of Inquiry did not arise as the allegations in the video clip had yet to be proven as authentic.

All right-thinking Malaysians are mystified and upset  by the Prime Minister’s response and have one question — why is  Abdullah threatening  dire consequences if  the Lingam Tape is not authentic but said nothing about action to be taken if it is proven true?

Abdullah’s initial considered  response 48 hours after the public surfacing of the Lingam Tape does not inspire public confidence that the Prime Minister would rise above the fray and be absolutely neutral and impartial in handling the latest scandal of the Malaysian judiciary.

He is right when he said that the Lingam Tape has yet to be proven as authentic, but on the other hand, 48 hours and now 72 hours have passed since its public disclosure had elapsed and its authenticity has not been challenged — neither by Lingam nor Chief Justice  Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, purportedly the other party in the telephone conversation recorded in the Lingam Tape.

The Prime Minister’s reaction is only valid and justifiable if he had received intimation from Fairuz denying the authenticity of the Lingam Tape as without such a denial from either Lingam or Ahmad Fairuz, Abdullah risks compromising  his high office in staking a position which gave full status quo backing to the Chief Justice.

Two weeks ago, the Chief Justice announced that he had written to the Prime Minister about the Federal Court judge who has not written his grounds of judgment in 35 cases when he was High Court Judge.

Isn’t it even more important that Ahmad Fairuz should make clear to the Prime Minister and the country  any denial about the authenticity of the Lingam Tape instead of a terse
“No comment”
 response to
Malaysiakini
, which raises even more questions than providing an answer?

When the Chief Justice cannot give an outright denial when specifically asked about his response to the Lingam Tape, Abdullah’s response is most inexplicable, indefensible, imprudent and goes against every principle of integrity and good governance.

Abdullah parried off the question of setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry on the ground that the Lingam Tape has yet to be proven to be authentic.

Why is Abdullah fighting shy  from making a specific public commitment that a Royal Commission of Inquiry or a Judicial Tribunal would be established if there is no denial from Ahmad Fairuz and if there is nothing to prove that the Lingam Tape is not authentic, as the implications of the Lingam Tape about national and international confidence in the system of justice in Malaysia are far-reaching and horrendous?

Every day that Ahmad Fairuz continues as Chief Justice with the Lingam Tape swirling and snowballing into a bigger international scandal, more and more foreign investors would be frightened off from choosing Malaysia as an investment destination because  of gnawing doubts about the independence, impartiality,  integrity  accountability and professionalism of the judiciary in Malaysia.

Can Ahmad Fairuz go into hiding or public exclusion until the expiry of his term as Chief Justice at the end of October, provided he is not granted a six-month extension?   Is he going to step down from every Federal Court case he is fixed to be a member for the rest of his tenure as Chief Justice?

Or will Ahmad  Fairuz put the higher interests of the judiciary and the nation above his personal interests and go on leave until disposal of the Lingam Tape scandal or end of his term as Chief Justice, whichever comes earlier?

As Prime Minister, Abdullah must not shirk from his responsibility to handle with responsibility and  resolve the new crisis of confidence in the judiciary and he owes it to the nation which has just celebrated 50th Merdeka anniversary to act decisively to invoke Article 125 of the Constitution to empanel a Judicial Tribunal and suspend Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice to restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity, accountability and professionalism of the judiciary.

In the Lingam Tape scandal, Abdullah is not a target.  However, he should be fully mindful that his reputation as Prime Minister is at stake as any  mishandling or failure of leadership to resolve the new crisis of confidence in the Malaysian judiciary in a decisive and impartial manner would go down in Malaysian history as a major indictment of his premiership and a blot on the 50th Merdeka anniversary.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2007, 11:30 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Court
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Nurin’s brutal death – let Cabinet observe minute-silence and renew forgotten commitment to keep crime low

The country joins the Prime Minister,
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
 in shock, anger and grief at the brutal rape-murder of eight-year-old
Nurin Jazlin Jazimin
,  whose naked body in a foetal position was stuffed in a sports bag in Petaling Utama.

No  stone must be left unturned to track down and to bring the murderer to justice.

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan said on Thursday that the Police was closing in on the killer.  All Malaysians pray and hope that the police would be successful in the hunt for the murderer.

In contrast, the statement yesterday by
Musa
that Nurin’s parents are being investigated for possible negligence have stirred very mixed feelings from Malaysians, regardless of race or religion.

If there is evidence that Nurin’s parents had been negligent contributing  to her brutal murder, and the parents are prosecuted, it is a totally different matter from putting pressure on the grieving parents at this time of their bereavement  when the police has as yet to get any evidence to establish any parental negligence.

Is it right and proper for Musa to add to the grief and sorrow of Nurin’s parents in such circumstances?

Nurin’s brutal rape-murder must be regarded as both a family tragedy for taxi driver Jazimin Abdul Jalil and a national shame.

There is something very sick and rotten in our society that Nurin could meet with such a brutal end.   But it also bespeaks of the  breakdown of the institutions in the state responsible for upholding law and order.

Let the Cabinet meeting next Wednesday begin by observing  a minute of silence for Nurin’s brutal death followed by a renewal of its forgotten commitment to make the country a safer place for our citizens, tourists and investors.

This renewal of commitment by the Cabinet is imperative for we must not allow Malaysia to become a crime-infested society which claim victims regardless of race or religion.

The time has come for Cabinet Ministers to be collectively responsible for the worsening crime situation in the country and to demand weekly police report on security situation until the crime rate is brought down to pre-Royal Police Commission period.

When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became Prime Minister about four years ago, he promised to make the war on crime one of his administration’s top agendas.

As a result, he established the Royal Police Commission to make recommendations to create a world-class police force which can keep crime low.

In its report, the Royal Police Commission expressed shock that there had been  a 29 per cent increase of crime in the eight years from 121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,455 cases in 2004, and sounded the warning that unless this trend was checked and reversed, there would be “major social and economic consequences for Malaysia”.

It recommended a major police crackdown on crime and the “immediate target of a minimum of 20 per cent decrease” in the incidence of crime within the first 12 months.

Instead of a 20 per cent reduction of crime in the first 12 months after the Royal Police Commission, there had been a 27 per cent increase in the crime index from 156,455 cases in 2004 to 198,622 cases in  2006 — when it took eight years for the crime index to increase 29 per cent from 1997 to 2004 which the Royal Police Commission had found completely unacceptable.

In the first six months of this year, the crime index worsened by 5.11 per cent when compared to the same period last year.    Just to illustrate the gravity of the worsening crime problem, there were 8.2 cases of rape a day in the first six months of this year as compared to 4 cases a day in 2003!

This is clear proof that the crime situation had got very much worse after the Royal Police Commission Report, although the reverse should have taken place — as the government had given up to 42% increase in salaries for police personnel, RM2.5 billion for police housing, as well as hundreds of millions of other allocations for  improvements in police service as recommended by the Royal Police Commission Report.   For the 2008 budget, RM6 billion is being allocated to the Police.

This atrocious state of affairs of high crime which has made life a nightmare not only to Malaysians, but also tourists and investors must not be allowed to continue.

Unless and until the crime index is brought back to the pre-Royal Police Commission period, the Cabinet must collectively be responsible for the crime situation, asking for a weekly crime report to monitor police progress in beating crime, and such a weekly police report to the Cabinet should also be made public.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2007, 3:59 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rakyat Itu Raja!

By
Farish A. Noor

It has, for reasons best known to some, become rather trendy to talk about the restoration of power to the King these days. Looking around the troubled landscape of Malaysia at the moment one does understand how and why the frustration of many could have led them to the conclusion that some higher form of intervention is badly needed at the moment. After all, four years on after the victory of the BN parties at the last polls it would appear as if none of the reform measures promised by the current administration have borne fruit: None of the major corruption cases have been resolved in court; reported incidents of abuse by the police have only increased; there is still talk of racial and religious communitarianism in our midst and the fanciful ego-trips of some politicians have compelled them to reach for the keris again and again in public.

By all accounts, it would appear as if the country has regressed over the years and we seem even closer towards sliding into the deeper morass of religious and racial sectarian politics. As if the divide-and-rule rhetoric of the race-based BN parties was not enough, now we are told that there will be a Muslim workers movement to rival the MTUC, which can only serve to divide the workers of Malaysia along religious sectarian lines even further. This can only add to the weakening of the workers movement in Malaysia, to the benefit of the established powers-that-be whose own divisive sectarian politics have brought us to where we are today.

So indeed, some kind of intervention is timely and badly needed, but from where, and who should be the actors and agents of change here?

One can point to legal and constitutional guidelines about the powers and responsibilities of the rulers of Malaysia. One can also highlight the fact that the Agong is technically the head of state and head of the armed forces. But to fall back on such a position in times of crisis would be akin to handing the country over to the UN when Malaysia’s problems are really its own doing, and those who are really responsible for turning things around happen to be us, the Malaysians themselves.

Our concern over the recent appeals for some form of royal intervention stems from an informed cynicism about the role of the royalty worldwide, and the knowledge that the differences in the respective subject-positions assumed by royals and citizens are bound to differ. It is true that there can be times when instrumental coalitions can be formed for the sake of a singular political goal; but how long can such coalitions be maintained when the class differentials and interests of the two groups can only collide in the long run?

As a counter-factual example to illustrate this point, it would pay to take a short trip back to the history of our neighbouring country, Thailand.

Some of us may recall that Thailand experienced its first democratic revolution in 1973, when the student forces of the country, working with the urban workers movement and middle-class, toppled the colonels’ regime that had been installed and backed by the United States of America. (Thailand was at the time a front-line state in the war against Communism, and thus a key strategic ally to the USA. It was during this time that US intervention in Thailand was at its peak, which led to a corresponding increase of student activism directed against the military government and its American backers.)

The King of Thailand played a crucial role in the 1973 revolution: Just when the conservative elements of the Thai elite and army were about to crush the student movement, the King opened the gates of his palace and allowed the students to seek refuge there. Protected by the King, the student revolution managed to gain strength and finally led to the election of democratic leaders like Seni Pramoj and Kukrit Pramoj. For a period of three years Thailand experimented with its democratic reform process which led to serious attempts to control the army and police as well as a public anti-corruption campaign.

However, by 1976 it became clear that the democratic revolution was not about to stop with the reform of the army and police, and would ultimately lead to the democratic reform of the whole political and economic system. It was then that the Thai business and political elite turned tails, and began to work with the more conservative elements of the Buddhist sangha. The King of Thailand was in turn persuaded to abandon the student movement, as he was warned that most of the democratic activists and reformers were Left-leaning unionists and communist sympathisers who would ultimately reduce the powers of the King as well.

Thus in 1976 the King turned a blind eye when a vicious and barbaric counter-coup was launched by the army, police, Buddhist conservatives and right-wing middle-class; leading to the storming of the campuses of Chulalongkorn and Thammasat universities and the massacre of students there. There were even reports of student leaders being executed and having their heads chopped off and mounted on the gates of the universities by right-wing thugs. Where was the benevolent King of Thailand then, whom many had applauded as the hero and saviour of democracy in 1973?

If there is a lesson to be found in all this, it is that a democratic reform process can only begin from below, and never above. Kings and Monarchs do not good democrats make, for they are the first who need to be taught the value of citizenship and civic responsibility. Furthermore any democratic reform must take into account the will of the demos- the people themselves- and give voice to the masses and not the elite.

And so it is with this painful lesson in mind that we take the recent calls for royal intervention with a bucketful of salt. Facing a government as inept, incompetent and clueless as we have at the moment is a task in itself; but it need not be made even more difficult by replacing one regime with another. In the end, the only maxim we ought to adhere to today is the clarion call of the 1940s, when Malaysians cried out: Raja itu Rakyat, Rakyat itu Raja! (The King is a citizen, And the citizens are King!)

(Dr. Farish A Noor is a political scientist and historian at the Zentrum Moderner Orient and guest Professor at Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University, Jogjakarta. He is also one of the founders of the research site
www.othermalaysia.org
.)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2007, 8:37 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Deal with the Rot, Not the Tape

by
M. Bakri Musa

If Chief Justice Ahmad Feiruz has any sense of personal honor and professional integrity left, he should resign immediately.  If Prime Minister Abdullah has even the slightest responsibility for leadership and moral duty to the citizens, he should not extend the Chief Justice’s contract, due to expire this October.  If the Malaysian Bar Council has any credible principle of societal obligation and self-policing ethics of a profession, it would disbar the lawyer making that phone call shown in the infamous video clip exposed by former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Alas, judging from past performances, expect none of these.  That is the unfortunate reality of Malaysia today.  What remains then would be for the King to withhold consent for extending Feiruz’s contract, thereby precipitating an unnecessary and distracting constitutional crisis the nation could ill bear.

The Bar Council had an Emergency Meeting, but instead of initiating the necessary disciplinary proceedings on the involved lawyer (which would definitely be within its power) it decided instead to march at Putrajaya and hand a petition to the Prime Minister demanding for a Royal Commission.  Next those lawyers would be demonstrating on the streets.  So Third World, a la Pakistan!  I would have thought those smart lawyers would have concocted some novel legal theory on which to sue the government into action.

Meanwhile Abdullah Badawi was “disappointed,” not at the explosive contents of the video but the fact that it was released.  Wake up, Mr. Prime Minister!  The rot is the Malaysian judiciary, not the taping.  If Abdullah does perk up from his slumber, he would probably order the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim!

Chief Justice Feiruz, taking a leaf from the Prime Minister’s notorious “elegant silence,” issued a terse, “No comment!”  It was neither elegant nor silent; instead it was ugly and spoke volumes.

Motive for Taping

The quality of the recording is such that it is unlikely to be a fake.  With today’s forensic capabilities, it would be foolish for anyone to even attempt this.  The lawyer concerned was speaking on his cell phone, meaning, there will be the inerasable digital trail.  My monthly cell phone bill details my outgoing and incoming calls.  Because of the quality, the video could not be shot surreptitiously as with a cell phone a la the earlier “nude ear squat” episode.  Besides, such a device was probably unavailable back in 2002.

The intriguing question then is why the taping was made in the first place.  Dispensing with the most common and obvious reason — stupidity — I posit a few.

One is that basic human emotion:  vanity.  The bragging rights of accumulating the next million after you have already acquired a few declines very rapidly.  You need some other trophies, like an embellished royal title or additional wives (for Muslims).  If you already have those, or cannot acquire them, then the next intoxicating fantasy would be to a kingmaker, or fancying yourself as one.

For a lawyer to be able to brag that you could “handle” senior judges must be the ultimate high.  It also considerably enhances your ability as rainmaker.  Years later in your old age, your skeptical grandchildren might attribute your boasts to nothing more than the rambling of a senile mind, unless of course you have the video to prove it!

Closely related to vanity is arrogance.  Humility is when you could manipulate the nation’s judiciary and have the quiet satisfaction; arrogance is when you flaunt it. This lawyer Lingam was certainly flaunting it!

Alternatively, I do not put it below this shyster to put on this monologue with an imagined targeted senior judge at the other end, a la Lat’s old cartoon, and then purposely “leaked” the tape out.  It would certainly be a headline grabber.  As for a motive, rogues are known to do this to each other when they have a falling out.  There is one quick way to check this:  examine the tape to determine when it was manufactured.

The last possibility is that this could be an insider’s job, perhaps an employee’s scheme to get even with his or her boss just in case he would get nasty in future.  Knowing how law firms’ employees are treated in Malaysia, this is a real possibility.

Judicial Commission No Remedy to Judiciary Rot

After much delay and amidst speculations, Abdullah finally appointed, apparently at the Ruler’s insistence, Justice Hamid Mohamed as President of the Court of Appeal, and Justice Alauddin Sherif as Chief Justice of Malaya.  The two are highly regarded for their integrity as well as for being apolitical and independent minded.  No wonder they were not Abdullah’s initial choice!

Abdullah also appointed a private lawyer Zaki Tun Azmi directly to the Appeals Court.  He was on UMNO’s “Money Politics” disciplinary board.  Lately he was known more for dumping his young Thai bride (his second, third, fourth?) and then asking her to burn their wedding certificate that was issued in Southern Thailand.  Such personal integrity!  The surprise is that the Council of Rulers consented to the appointment.

Perhaps Zaki Azmi was Abdulalh’s ideal choice for a future Chief Justice.  That would of course reflect on Abdullah.

The rot in the judiciary predates Abdullah.  However, he had the opportunity to reverse the trend or at least stem the decline with these new appointments, but as with the massive electoral mandate he received in 2004, he squandered it.

Many are advocating for an independent Judicial Commission to deal with judges’ appointments and promotions.  I disagree.  Judges and the judiciary generally must be accountable to the public.  While I would not have judges be elected, as in some jurisdictions in America, the current system with judges appointed by the Prime Minister and consented to by the Council of Rulers is a good substitute.  There is no point wasting time and effort tinkering with the current system.

What is needed instead is for the Prime Minister to be wise in his appointments and to open the field as wide as possible.  In America, federal judges are nominated by the President and then consented to by the Senate, after a public confirmation hearing.  If the president were stupid enough to nominate someone equally stupid, the Senate would not hesitate to deny the confirmation, after the appropriate public humiliation of the hearings.  Additionally, the Bar Associations, legal scholars, and editorial boards would never shy from voicing their opinions.

The Prime Minister cannot abdicate his responsibility in selecting judges.  If Abdullah needs guidance (he obviously does!), I suggest that he reads Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs.  If he finds the volumes too thick and tedious, I can help Abdullah by referring him to the relevant few pages.

Elsewhere I commented on the intellectual and experiential insularity of Malaysian judges.  They are almost exclusively drawn from the civil service, with minimal or no outside experience in academia, private sector, or elsewhere.  They follow directives only too well.

I was stunned that Chief Justice Feiruz, when confronted with the evidence that he had promoted judges who had been delinquent with their written judgments, would write to the Prime Minister instead of handling the issue himself.  Presumably Feiruz was awaiting arahan (directive) from the Prime Minister.  So much for his appreciation and understanding of the concept of separation of powers!

That more than anything reflects the caliber of Feiruz.  Don’t get me started on the quality of his legal writings and commentaries!

In the end it does not matter what system you have if those responsible for selecting our judges do not do the job responsibly.  The rot in our judiciary is not with the system but with the personnel.  The system has produced such judicial luminaries as Tun Suffian and Raja Azlan Shah.  It could do it again.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2007, 9:42 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Bakri Musa
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – MCA Ministers can undergo lobotomy or behave like traditional three monkeys, do not mean public must follow

Deputy Internal Security Minister
Datuk Fu Ah Kiow
  in Kuantan yesterday asked all parties to refrain from speculating on the video clip of a lawyer allegedly brokering the appointment of judges, saying it was unwise to make assumptions or draw conclusions without solid evidence.

He repeated the nonsensical line: “The video clip merely shows a telephone conversation between the lawyer and another person. We don’t know exactly what they are talking about.

“Therefore, we should not arrive at a conclusion before police conclude their investigations.”

In the first place, it is very clear as to the matters that were talked about in the Lingam Tape.

Secondly, matters adverted to in the Lingam Tape is not just about brokering the appointment of judges but the wholesale perversion of the course of justice, polluting and contaminating not only the present administration of justice but the whole system of governance.

Thirdly, if  MCA Ministers want to undergo a lobotomy or behave like the traditional three monkeys of having eyes that see not, ears that hear not and mouths that speak not, there is no reason why Malaysian citizens should emulate them.

Only yesterday, the
Bar Council
emergency meeting  called for the immediate establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the Lingam Tape and the rot in the judiciary since 1988.

The Bar Council also decided on a march from the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya to the Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday to submit a memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for the Cabinet to discuss the setting up of the commission.

An extraordinary meeting of the 13,500-strong  Malaysian Bar would also be convened on October 6 in Kuala Lumpur on the Lingam Tape and the “mother” of judicial crisis which  encompassed  all the judicial crises of the past two decades.

Is Fu passing critical and adverse judgment on the Bar Council, the 13,500-strong Malaysian Bar and all vigilant and patriotic  Malaysians, individual or organization, who had spoken up to demand immediate action to be taken on the Lingam Tape, including Transparency International Malaysia, Aliran, Suaram, etc?

Recently, MCA and MCA Youth leaders have been very fond of waving the Malaysian Constitution at their functions.

MCA Ministers should wave the Constitution at Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting to support the call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to restore public confidence in the judiciary and to  remind all Ministers that the principle of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity had always been a fundamental cornerstone of the Merdeka social contract instead of dishing out misleading and dishonest advice asking Malaysians not to “speculate” on the Lingam Tape.

MCA Ministers should declare whether they fully support Fu in wanting to stifle national outrage and muzzle all public discussion on the Lingam Tape and the latest national and international crisis of confidence in the judiciary — or whether they are prepared to speak up in the Cabinet on Wednesday to speak in the strongest possible terms that no responsible government can turn a blind eye to the far-reaching and horrendous consequences of the Lingam Tape scandal.

The initial response by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on Friday after further examination,  is even more troubling.

After saying that the Lingam Tape must be “viewed seriously” as it “bears a story that can harm the good name of the judicial system”, he stressed that
“if there is no proof that the video is true, then action should be taken against those behind it”
.

Is Abdullah saying that unless it could be proved that the Lingam Tape is true, it must be taken as “untrue”, even when there is no denial whether by Lingam or the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, purportedly the other party in the telephone conversation recorded in the Lingam Tape?

If so, isn’t this setting up an escape clause for Lingam and Ahmad Fairuz?

Last month, Abdullah publicly  said that the Chief Justice must answer the allegation that a Federal Court judge had failed to write the grounds of judgment in over 30 cases, followed by an announcement by Ahmad Fairuz a week later that he had written to the Prime Minister about the matter.

Why can’t the Prime Minister ask Ahmad Fairuz to make a simple statement of denying the veracity of the Lingam Tape on a matter which is far more important, as it is capable of undermining Malaysia’s international reputation and competitiveness?

Four days have passed but there has not been any denial from Ahmad Fairuz or Lingam. Isn’t the duo’s silence deafening?

What is very troubling is that on two consecutive days after the public revelation of the Lingam Tape by Anwar Ibrahim, photographs of the Prime Minister seated on the same table breaking fast with Ahmad Fairuz was prominently published in the New Straits Times (Thursday’s paper on the Istana Negara breaking of fast and Friday’s paper on  the event hosted by the Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Sidek Hassan).

On both occasions, didn’t Ahmad Fairuz make a single denial of the Lingam Tape?

Is the purpose of the  message of the two prominent photographs in the press  that despite the nation-wide outcry and outrage over the Lingam Tape, Ahmad Fairuz has the full and solid support of Abdullah and that  the Prime Minister is backing the Chief Justice to the hilt regardless of the facts of the case and the consequences?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2007, 10:26 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zam is a disgrace to Malaysia – handicapped by his chauvinistic mindset from becoming a full Malaysian

Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin is a disgrace to Malaysian nation-building on her 50th Merdeka anniversary, a Minister who is handicapped by his narrow-minded thinking from becoming a full Malaysian, constantly playing the communal drum to turn every issue including human rights, corruption and justice  into a racial one.

This is the
Bernama
 report of Zainuddin’s remarks attacking the DAP in Sungai Petani yesterday:

Zainuddin said many of the party’s statements seemed to be aimed at eroding public confidence in the police force, besides taking a swipe at the Malays by connecting police with the Malay community.

“As most of the police personnel are Malays, any action taken in a case is seen by the DAP as the use of Malay power over the non-Malays,” he said in reference to several rape and corruption cases highlighted by the DAP.

It is sad and tragic that although Malaysia has just celebrated 50 years of independent nationhood, there are still people occupying positions of power in government who have not kept abreast with the evolution of Malaysian identity and consciousness but  continue to cling to their  chauvinist mindset, seeing everything through the communal prism.

A quarter of a century ago, when I spoke up against the biggest financial scandal in the nation’s history,  the RM2.5 billion  Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal, I was charged of being anti-Malay with the accusers completely ignoring   the cold-blooded murder in Hong Kong of  a young and promising Malay accountant  Jalil Ibrahim, who was the Assistant General Manager  of BMF.

Just like the late Tan Sri Ahmad Nordin, who chaired a three-man Commission of Inquiry into the BMF scandal, the question of race never passed my mind but only accountability, transparency and integrity for the RM2.5 billion public funds and justice for the murdered Jalil Ibrahim when I  pursued the BMF scandal both inside and out of Parliament.

When I read Zainuddin’s fulminations, I felt not only shock, outrage but also a deep sense of shame that Malaysian nation-building had been so unsuccessful that on Malaysia’s 50th Merdeka anniversary, there is  still a Cabinet Minister who is so handicapped by his  narrow-minded thinking that he  cannot grow up to be a full Malaysian  as he  sees everything through the communal prism.

I make no apology, both in and out of Parliament, in taking a strong stand for the restoration of the fundamental rights of Malaysians to be free from crime and the fear of crime, whether in the streets, public places or the privacy of their homes, because of the unchecked crime waves in the country.

The  prevalent fear of crime felt by ordinary Malaysians is  tragically summed up by the heading of a “Letter to the Editor” to the Star yesterday —

“Not safe at home, not safe to go out”
!

Zainuddin would not understand such fear felt by ordinary Malaysians about their personal safety and those of their loved ones while going about  their ordinary lives because he has the full 24/7 police protection as Cabinet Minister.

But he should know that he cannot have lifelong protection as he will have to step down as Cabinet Minister — sooner than later — and he will then be as vulnerable to the rising crime wave as any ordinary Malaysian, as many VIPs have found out, including former Cabinet Ministers, former Inspectors-General of Police and even the former Yang di Pertua of Sarawak.

The heinous rape-murder  perpetrated on eight-year-old Nurin Jazlin Jazimin is a reminder that crime knows no race and it is a great national disservice for any leader, let alone a Cabinet Minister, to give it a communal twist.

The Cabinet should censure Zainuddin for such rank chauvinism, trying  to twist and distort the campaign for an efficient, incorruptible, professional, world-class police service to keep crime and corruption low — the objectives the Royal Police Commission established by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi — into a communal issue when the victims of crime come from all races.

Just as race had never entered into my mind when I  consistently advocated increased pay and improved service conditions for the police,  I will continue to demand a more efficient police force capable of ensuring a low crime rate in the country not on any grounds of race but because it is the fundamental right of all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, gender or age!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2007, 12:34 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
nation building
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


50th Merdeka – arrest and reverse retrogression if Malaysia is not to lose out in global stakes

Should Malaysians be proud of what the country has achieved after 50 years of independence?

In Parliament, a Barisan Nasional Member of Parliament said Malaysia has great cause to be satisfied with the nation’s progress and achievements in the past 50 years as the country is ten times more advanced than Ghana, which also became independent in the same year as Malaysia in 1957.

This BN MP is right if we are prepared to compare with the worst — but Malaysians must not be content with  such low benchmarks and must be prepared to compare with the best rather than the worst, especially as the people are being bombarded every day with the slogan of “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang”.

We should be concerned as to why the country had failed to hold our prominent position  in the region and the world when the nation was second only to Japan as the most developed country in Asia 50 years ago in 1957.

We should ask why we have lost out to South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong with an ever-increasing gap when we were ahead of them 50 years ago instead of the false pride of being well ahead of Ghana.

Malaysia’s 50th Anniversary has highlighted major areas of retrogression which must be arrested and reversed if Malaysia is not to continue to  lose out in the global stakes for competition, progress and development.

If those in power and authority in Malaysia continue in their “denial complex”, refusing to come to grips with reality and address the reasons for our decline and retrogression, more and more countries in future will be overtaking us in the international competitiveness and development stakes like Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and even some African countries although we will continue to be poles ahead of the failed African states like  Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.

Last Thursday, there was an article in the
“Capital Talk”
business section of the Star  on Bapa Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman  entitled

“True visionary”
, which made  some interesting  comparisons between Malaysia today from that of 50 years.

Let me quote some extracts from this article:

In the 1960s, Malaysians were not complacent. They lived in a performance-based system where meritocracy was recognised and encouraged. University Malaya very quickly became a highly respected university in the entire Commonwealth.

Religion was not politicised. Malaysian society was much more liberal then than what it is today…

The Anti-Corruption Agency began formal operations on Oct 1, 1967. Led by Tunku, Tan Siew Sin and Sambanthan, the Government in the 60s was not perceived as being plagued by rampant corruption, unlike nowadays.

By any standards, the above achievements were world-class and made Malaysians proud…

After Tunku was forced to retire, Malaysia was never the same again. The standard of English declined and is still declining. The education system became politicised and the quality suffered severely. Malaysian sports became politicised too.

Under the previous administration, business, politics and corruption became inseparable under the guise of Malaysia Inc. The judiciary became a source of embarrassment instead of pride. Religious fundamentalism became intertwined with politics and this destroyed the entire landscape of an open Malaysian society.

Different races go to different schools and Malaysians of all races face more barriers at interacting compared with during Tunku’s time. Meritocracy and a performance-based system were replaced by complacency and a get-rich quick mentality that cut across all communities. Now, we cannot find the equivalent of the Rubber Research Institute…

The tragedy for Malaysia was the failure of the ruling political party to see the vision and the wisdom of Tunku’s multi-faceted policies. Had they continued with his policies, Malaysia would have succeeded far beyond what it has achieved so far.

Let i Capital rank visionary from 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest score. Tunku’s policy of retaining English ranks as 10. The policy of making the rule of law the way in governing Malaysia and maintaining the independence of the judiciary also ranks as 10. The rule by person from 1982 onwards would be ranked 1.

Tunku’s policy of allowing the economy to be influenced by market forces certainly ranks as 10. The subsequent policy of managing the economy on a central planning model gets a 1. Tunku’s policy of promoting meritocracy and a performance-based system earns a 10 — if only we can rank it as 11. His policy of a balanced economic development would also rank as 10.

The multiple scandals which recently burst on the Malaysian scene on the occasion of the 50th anniversary whether the pervasive mismanagement of public funds exposed by he 2006 Auditor-General’s Report; corruption in the police and public service;  the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone bailout scandal; the galloping crime wave illustrated by the heinous rape-murder of eight-year-old girl Nurin Jazlin Jazimin and   the latest crisis of confidence in the judiciary  after the revelation of the Lingam Tape are all proof as to how far we have fallen from the high standards the country has set for itself when we achieved Merdeka 50 years ago.

After 50 years, the  country has lost its bearings.  We are in danger of losing the national soul. Malaysia must get back to the basics.

All Malaysians have a national and patriotic duty to take a stand  to check the rot setting in all the major institutions of the state so that Malaysia  can take its rightful place among the front rank of developed nations instead of just sloganeering about “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang” while it slides further down the international competitiveness stakes.

(Speech at the swearing-in ceremony for the DAP Bukit Mertajam parliamentary liaison committee at DAP Bukit Mertajam branch on Sunday,  23rd September 2007)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2007, 9:26 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Judiciary
,
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.


Burma Uprising – Abdullah should articulate ASEAN aspirations for Burma in UN speech on Thursday

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should articulate the  aspirations of the ASEAN people  for  national reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Burma  in his United Nations speech on Thursday as any omission on the latest developments in Burma would have rendered his speech quite irrelevant to the region and the world.

Today is the seven straight day that monks  have marched in the Burmese capital of Yangon, leading protestors  reaching 10,000 on Saturday, 20,000 yesterday and 30,000 today against the military junta over the chronic economic crisis resulting in ever-rising prices of commodities and  human rights violations including illegal detentions and mistreatment of political detainees.

There are fears of a repeat of 1988, when the last democracy uprising was crushed by the military and some 3,000 people were killed.

This is the time for ASEAN government leaders, together with the support of China and India, to engage and impress on the Myanmar military junta not to resort to violence but to turn it into an opportunity to resolve the present crisis with the support of all stakeholders, including  Nobel Prize laureate Aung Sun Suu Kyi, all political prisoners,  the pro-democracy activists and ethnic nationalities, to work out a national reconciliation formula to return Burma to democracy and civilian rule.

While in the United Nations, Abdullah should take the initiative for a mini-ASEAN summit  and emergency UN General Assembly debate on Burma.

Malaysia and the other ASEAN nations must be in the forefront in the UN General Assembly beginning on Thursday to work out a peaceful and democratic solution to the long-running crisis in Burma.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2007, 6:08 pm and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – credibility of Fairuz’s denial through Nazri zero like earlier case on abolition of common law

Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has
allegedly denied
that he was the person  that  senior lawyer V.K. Lingam was talking to in the now infamous 8-minute Lingam Tape on the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments, court judgment and getting a Tan Sri award.

I chose the term “allegedly denied” as there is no proof that Ahmad Fairuz had actually denied that he was the person Lingam was talking to in the Lingam Tape, especially as some 24 hours earlier Ahmad Fairuz had in “black-and-white” through his special assistant Arleen Ramly written to Malaysiakini to give a two-paragraph “No  comment” response to its  earlier fax inquiry.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz claimed that Ahmad Fairuz had called him to deny that he was the one talking to Lingam.

Nazri’s claim is full of holes.

Firstly, how is Nazri sure that it was Ahmad Fairuz who had spoken to him by phone  and not an impersonator. Has Nazri got proof that Ahmad Fairuz had denied?

Secondly, why did Ahmad Fairuz make such a denial when 24 hours earlier he had directed his special assistant Arleen Ramly to fax a two paragraph “No comment” letter on the Chief Justice’s letterhead to Malaysiakini?

Thirdly,  isn’t Ahmad Fairuz capable of issuing such a denial himself and isn’t he  aware of the doctrine of Separation of Powers among the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary by  conducting himself in such an improper  and subservient manner,  subordinating the Judiciary to the Executive?

Fourthly, why didn’t Ahmad Fairuz issue the denial in the first 72 hours of the expose of the Lingam Tape by Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday, especially as he had met the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi both on Wednesday and Thursday night, seated at the same table, at the Istana and the Chief Secretary to the Government’s fast-breaking functions respectively?

Fifthly, what was the purpose of the photographs of Ahmad Fairuz and the Prime Minister seated at the same table on both consecutive nights  prominently published in the New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia?

Is it to send the  message that Ahmad Fairuz has the full backing of  the Prime Minister, regardless of the  nation-wide outcry and outrage over the Lingam Tape?

Sixthly, what is the credibility of Ahmad Fairuz’ alleged denial through Nazri? Is its believability as abysmal as Ahmad Fairuz’ earlier alleged denial through Nazri of his proposal to abolish English common law and replacement by Islamic law –  which is zero?

On
5th September 2007
, Nazri replied in Parliament to my earlier speech criticizing  Ahmad Fairuz’ call for the abolition of the common law system and favouring its replacement by Islamic law system as being most unbecoming of the highest judicial officer of the land sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution and the Merdeka social contract.

Ahmad Fairuz had made such a call when opening a seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim on August 21, which made the front-page headline in the Utusan Malaysia the next day.

I had pointed out that if the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas could be indicted and sacked for, among other things, disregarding the secular basis of the Malaysian Constitution and advocating Islamisation of Malaysian legal system, shouldn’t Ahmad  Fairuz similarly be referred to a Judicial Tribunal for a similar offence?

Nazri tried to give a very “slippery” reply. He gave a flat denial that Ahmad Fairuz had ever made such a call for the abolition of the common law system saying that the Chief Justice’s speech made no such mention whatsoever.

An exchange between DAP MP for Bandar Kuching , Chong Chieng Jen and Nazri on the New Economic Policy issues which Chong had earlier raised gave me an opportunity to do an immediate Internet search from my notebook in the Chamber  and I was able, when Nazri resumed his reply, to point to newspaper reports of the Chief Justice questioning the need to use English Common Law after 50 years of independence and the ensuing  furore of  reactions to Ahmad Fairuz’ call, particularly from the Malaysian Bar.

I also referred to the comment of  another Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Dato Dr. Abdullah Zin who advocated that “the proposal to use Syariah Law to replace English Common Law in court proceeding should be studied thoroughly first”  and that of the Prime Minister that the proposal deserved study — all evidence  that a flat denial that Fairuz had made the call for the abolition of the common law was just not acceptable or credible.

Nazri blamed reporters and their poor quality reporting for the mistake. However, when I asked  why no correction had been made by Ahmad Fairuz for close to two weeks of the public controversy over his call, Nazri said Parliament was the best forum for the explanation and he made one startling claim:

 “Hari pertama perkara ini keluar, Ketua Hakim telah menghubungi saya untuk menyatakan bahawa itu merupakan statu perkara tidak benar yang dituliskan dalam akhbar.  Saya tidak menyalahi beliau kerana dengan izin I have got bad experience juga dengan surat khabar. Apa juga yang kita nafikan yang dilaporkan mereka, tidak mendapat tempat yang sama seperti mana mereka telah melaporkan sehari sebelum itu sebab credibilitynya. Saya rasa, pada saya, it is a waste of time.”

I found subsequently that Nazri’s reply was not truthful as he himself was reported in Utusan Malaysia on 24th August 2007 as supporting Ahmad Fairuz’s call for abolition of the common law system, as follows:

Beliau (Nazri) berkata sebagai pemegang jawatan tertinggi dalam bidang kehakiman, Ahmad Fairuz sudah tentu lebih arif terhadap perkara tersebut.

Sehubungan itu, beliau menyokong saranan yang dikemukakan oleh Ahmad Fairuz supaya rujukan kepada Common Law dimansuhkan daripada undang-undang sivil diMalaysia.

“Saya percaya Tun (Ahmad Fairuz) mempunyai asas dan tahu apakan jenis perubahan yang ingin beliau lakukan terutama yang berkaitan dengan cadangan ini (mansuh common law),” katanya kepada Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

This Utusan Malaysia report of 24th August 2007 debunked Nazri’s claim that Ahmad Fairuz had contacted him the very next day the report of his call for the abolition of Common Law appeared in the media to tell him that it was incorrect — as Nazri would not have gone public to endorse Ahmad Fairuz’ call as reported by Utusan Malaysia.

Up to now, Ahmad Fairuz had never denied or confirmed Nazri’s denial that he had ever called for the abolition of the common law although he knew that the public controversy over his call is still raging on — with the latest article supporting him by Dr. Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad,  Senior Fellow/Director of the Centre of Syariah, Law and Science, Institute of  Islamic Understanding, Malaysia (IKIM) in the Star on 18th September 2007 entitled

“Time to Malaysianise common law system”
  while the
Bar Council website
forum on the subject had attracted 68 comments.

This is why I say that if the credibility of Ahmad Fairuz’ denial through Nazri with regard to the Lingam Tape is the same as his earlier alleged denial through Nazri of his proposal to abolish English common law and replacement by Islamic law, then it is of total zero value!

If Ahmad Fairuz is not prepare to personally make a categorical denial with regard to the Lingam Tape and to take the necessary steps to clear his name, then the public must conclude that there is something very rotten about the judiciary and justify questioning  his competence and fitness to continue as Chief Justice.

Ahmad Fairuz’ term as Chief Justice expires at the end of next month. He had caused one constitutional deadlock when his nominee for Chief Judge of Malaya was objected by the Conference of Rulers for eight months until it was withdrawn.

Is he going to be the cause of another constitutional crisis over his application to extend his tenure as Chief Justice after October 2007?  And is a third constitutional crisis in-the-making  over the nomination of the next Chief Justice after Ahmad Fairuz?

The Cabinet on Wednesday must act in the best interests of the nation to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary to  its heyday before 1988 — and not allow the development of a twin crisis, both constitutional and judicial.

The Cabinet must cut the Gordian Knot on Wednesday — set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the judicial scandals since 1988 and the establishment of a Judicial Appointment and Promotion Commission to ensure that the Prime Minister gives proper regard to  accountability, transparency and meritocracy on all appointments and promotions of judges to uphold judicial independence, impartiality, integrity and meritocracy.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2007, 1:22 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.


Turks do not want Turkey to be another Malaysia turning into an Islamic state

On Friday, two journalists from Turkey biggest-circulation newspaper Hurriyet interviewed me.

I was taken aback when they told me  that their prime interest was how  Turkey could learn from the mistakes of Malaysia as there is great concern among the Turks of  Turkey becoming another Malaysia down the road of  an Islamic state.

They wanted to know what were the major and significant events  which marked Malaysia turning  from its original commitment towards a secular state towards an Islamic state.

Later on the same day, I received an email from a Malaysian enclosing a Turkish  media  report of Turkish President Gul allaying  Turkish fears of Turkey turning into another Malaysia and becoming an Islamic state.

Entitled

“Turkey would never turn into another Malaysia”
, President Gul answered the question of those who fear Turkey will become a country like Malaysia during his first official trip to Northern Cyprus by responding: “Turkey is negotiating with the EU for full membership. If there are people who still have worries on the scarf issue, then we should fear those people instead.” (SABAH Newspaper)

Malaysians should be aware that Malaysia is already regarded as an example which Turkey must avoid becoming — a nation which deviated from its secular origins and moving headlong towards an Islamic state.

It should be a wake-up call for all Malaysians who hold dear the Merdeka social contract that Malaysia is a multi-religious secular nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state.

Let the debate and disquiet among Turks that Turkey could become  another Malaysia moving down the road of  an Islamic state be a salutary reminder to Malaysians how the world outside is seeing our country and the urgent need for all Malaysians  to stay true and strong to the Merdeka social contract that Malaysia is a multi-religious secular nation with Islam as official religion but not an Islamic state.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 24 September 2007, 2:20 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.