`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Monday, April 13, 2015

Like thieves in the night – The Phantom Busybody


Image result for najib

In his Malaysia Day message in 2011, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak made the following statements which I have conveniently placed in three separate paragraphs below:
“… In fact, I have often pointed out that the era where the government knew everything and owned a monopoly on wisdom has long gone.
“Moving further ahead, administering a nation that emerged from the independence driven by the wishes of the people, the government is now committed towards upholding the system of parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, rule of law, the federation philosophy and principles of checks and balances between the three branches of the government.
The parliamentary proceedings this week only confirm that Najib’s words were just that – words. Worse still, words that were hoisted upon an insincere heart.
1. Government knows everything?
If Najib were sincere in his claim that the era of “government knows everything” was over, he ought to have held a nationwide referendum to seek the views of the people he claims to have a “mandate” from to govern.
The impression the ordinary citizen gets is that Najib merely consults his coterie of Umno buddies before declaring unabashedly that the decisions they reached are for the benefit of the whole nation, including the 51% who did not vote for him and his coalition.
Quite clearly, Najib is simply imposing his wishes upon the people!
2. Upholding the rule of law?
It appears to me that the approach of Najib and that of his Barisan Nasional when it comes to the rule of law may be aptly described by borrowing Lord Bingham’s cheeky description in his book “The Rule of Law” as one that amounts to a little more than a “hooray for our side”.  If it favours Barisan Nasional, then it fulfils the “rule of law”.
Bingham listed 8 principles of the rule of law and they are as follows:
(1) The law must be accessible and, so far as possible, be intelligible, clear and predictable.
On this score, members of Parliament from both sides argued last week that some of the acts and revisions proposed were vague. In fact, the Sedition Act regards the intention of the accused, the bedrock of criminal law, as irrelevant.
In terms of predictability, one may cheekily say that the Sedition Act fulfils the criteria in that it is always predictably applied to opposition leaders and its supporters. The term “government” in the Sedition Act is in practice given a restrictive interpretation to apply only to the federal government, never to state governments which Pakatan Rakyat governs.
However, an expansive interpretation is ordinarily given to the act to cover even the political parties or their leaders that form the federal government. It’s revolting to hold as seditious, statements that incite the people against the prime minister (who was supported by 47% of the electorate) but not do the same when similar statements are directed at the opposition leader, chief minister of Penang or the menteri besar of Selangor or Kelantan where support of the electorate exceeds 51%.
(2) Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not by the exercise of discretion.
We have seen numerous attempts by the government to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and place powers to detain at the discretion of individuals or non-independent committees – witness the Pota, The Sedition Act (though the government may have changed its mind now) and even in non-criminal matters such as the Danaharta Act.
(3) The law should apply equally to all, except to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation.
We have seen a rapist with “bright” future, investigative journalists who received the “Holy Communion” in a church and later spat it out, cow-head protestors, a racist ‘professor’ who spews venom against the Chinese in particular and Perkasa leaders all spared from the clutches of the law, giving us the impression that the law is often on the side of the malefactor.
(4) The law must afford adequate protection of human rights.
The numerous extrajudicial killings, the arresting of members of parliament by balaclava hooded policemen armed with machine guns in the early hours of the morning, the failure to allow the arrested access to legal counsel are but some examples of flagrant infringement of human rights.
The case of Teoh Beng Hock, despite an authoritative decision of the Court of Appeal holding certain individuals at the MACC responsible for his death, has been met with no further action. No respite in his sight for his family. Twisting the knife further into their wounds, the impugned individuals were promoted to higher positions in defiance of the court’s findings. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies” is the question on my mind.
(5) Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve.
We do appear to have opportunities for arbitration and consumer courts which are relatively cheap and fast. 
(6) Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them reasonably, in good faith, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, and without exceeding the limits of such powers.
The yearly audit findings of wastage, corruption and breaches of regulations by the Auditor-General provide enough examples of how our ministers and public officers blatantly offend this principle. More repulsive is the failure of the government to take any meaningful action against the offenders.
(7) Judicial and other adjudicative procedures must be fair and independent.
In most parts of the world, an accused person is allowed to offer any defence of his choice, however fanciful, against a charge that may be proffered against him. He will be allowed to call as witnesses those he thinks will be able to create doubts about the case against him.
But not in Malaysia, especially if you raise a claim of political conspiracy! Not one of the witnesses will be subpoenaed, especially if they are senior politicians. At the end of the case, the judges will rule unabashedly that the accused failed to prove his claim of political conspiracy despite the presence of fourteen lawyers defending him. 
(8) There must be compliance by the state with its international law obligations.
Malaysia is a member of the United Nations, we are on the Security Council and we chair the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), but we have yet to ratify the International Refugee Convention. Refugees can’t even open bank accounts in Malaysia.
In conclusion, we appear to fulfil just one out eight of the principles proposed by Lord Bingham.
The PM’s speech also touched upon “The Federation Philosophy” (whatever that means) but in the newly minted revisions of the Sedition Act, anyone who preaches of secession may be found guilty of sedition.
To me, this is akin to a law that warns a battered and abused wife that she will be jailed if she demands for a divorce. The more appropriate way to deal with this situation in my humble view is to emulate the approach of the United Kingdom when dealing with Scotland. The prime minister of the United Kingdom did not threaten Scotland; rather he pleaded for the country to stay on and pledged more powers and support for Scotland.
The above speech by the PM was no ordinary speech. It was one made with full awareness that Barisan Nasional had been denied a two-third majority in Parliament in 2008 for the first time since 1969.
It was made with the awareness that the next general election were due in two years. In 2013, the electorate voted with their feet to deny Barisan Nasional not just a two-third majority in Parliament but for the first time in Malaysia’s history, they gave Pakatan Rakyat a popular vote of 51%.
The electorate made it clear that they had enough of corruption, wastage, racism, oppressive laws and empty slogans, to name a few. Yet in the second week of April 2015, we saw Barisan Nasional, like the proverbial dog that returns to its vomit, return to its old ways of the “government knows best”.
In the second week of April 2015, we did not witness a group of hardworking Barisan Nasional MPs working late at night and then through the wee hours of the morning to pass legislation. The reality is that we witnessed a bunch of proverbial thieves in the night (and wee hours of the morning) rob the rights of the people by introducing even more oppression into already draconian laws.
In Malaysia as far I am concerned, taking away the judiciary’s right of scrutiny of the actions of the executive and leaving the exercise of legislative powers solely in the hands of the executive, is akin to placing a dove in the mouth of the wolf and allowing the latter to decide if it will bite.
* The Phantom Busybody reads The Malaysian Insider.

1 comment:

  1. "Like thieves in the night – The Phantom Busybody"

    Yes indeed.

    9 April 2015 - "Tempers flare as Putrajaya pushes through 4 bills late night"

    "Tempers flared at the Parliament late Wednesday after opposition lawmakers attempted to end the meeting at 11.30pm as the government tried to push through four more bills.

    Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo led the opposition charge and demanded sitting be suspended as Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Wahid Omar attempted to wrap up the debate on the Malaysian Aviation Commission Bill 2015.

    "It is not fair to debate four more bills tonight. And we finish at 4am. Tomorrow we have a very important Bill to discuss," the DAP lawmaker said, referring to the amendments to the Sedition Act which is due for debate at Thursday's sitting.

    "What is the urgency here? We cannot do it. We cannot debate it. We are not giving justice to the people."

    However, Deputy Speaker Datuk Ismail Mohd Said refused to allow ‎this and asked the minister to continue, which prompted other opposition lawmakers to kick up a fuss and demand proceedings be ended.

    Gobind and opposition members maintained their stand and this went on for a few minutes as the chair tried to rein in the shouting opposition deputies.

    Angry Barisan Nasional lawmakers also joined in and shouted back, insisting that the remaining bills be debated tonight as willed by Putrajaya.

    BN Ketereh MP Tan Sri Annuar Musa reminded the opposition that the motion for the sitting to continue until the eighth item on the order paper was debated, was endorsed earlier in the day at the end of question time.

    He demanded to know why the opposition did not object when the motion was moved at the time.

    At this juncture, Ismail, citing the Standing Orders, threatened ‎to evict and suspend Gobind, Tian Chua (PKR-Batu), N. Surendran (PKR-Padang Serai) and Charles Santiago (DAP-Klang), if they continued speaking.

    Gobind, however, shot back at the Deputy Speaker, telling Ismail not to threaten him.

    "Don't threaten me. To me, it doesn't matter if you suspend me," he said.

    "But, Speaker, do you have any conscience? Outsiders do not know what bill is being debated at this time. Why do we have to continue with this?

    "My question is this, if there is no basis to rush through the bills, then why?"

    Despite more objections from other opposition MPs, Ismail said the sitting would continue.

    At 11.57pm, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Shahidan Kassim moved a motion to stop the clock for the second time this week for the sitting to continue.

    Stopping the clock is a parliament procedure in which a legislature literally or notionally stops the clock, usually for the purpose of meeting a constitutional or statutory deadline where parliament has to stop its days proceeding by midnight.

    On Monday, Putrajaya stopped the clock to push through the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota), at 2.25am much to the chagrin of the opposition which was caught napping.

    The final vote taken favoured the government with 79 from Barisan Nasional supporting it and 60 from the opposition against it, drawing an outcry from the public, which felt the opposition could have defeated the bill if all 86 Pakatan Rakyat MPs had been present..."

    Tempers flare as Putrajaya pushes through 4 bills late night - http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/tempers-flare-in-parliament-as-putrajaya-tries-to-push-through-four-bills#sthash.1jTmeJn7.dpuf

    They are just morons who do not see the bigger implications with the adopted bill - typical mercenaries ($$$ + contracts) who do not use their heads.

    You be the judge.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.