A leading constitutional legal expert from school of thots of Thackeray,go to aid Sindi patel to rhythm of the Kerala snake Whither Justice – Trajectory Due to its peculiar nature
July 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Police – violent, brutal, unpatriotic, liar!
Everyone knows Pattail got promoted to AG
For his role in Anwar’s case for sodomy
Mahatir purposely brought him
To stop and kill Anwar IbrahimThey now trying to do the same scenario
Najib, Musa, Pattail, bastards, the trio
Trying, again to do it all over
But round one went to Anwar’s favour
The judges have become brave and daring
Saying enough is enough to your raping
Of the court and the judiciary
With your repeated cases of sodomy
Do not be misled by mere change in name. Our democracy is modelled along British parliamentsry democracy but we end up with dictatorship /totaitarian system of GUIDED DEMOCRACY as represented by the Mahahir regime and pepectuated by the present government. We try to model our Anti-corruption Agency along the HONGKONG Independent CAC but may end up with a GUIDED Commission that may not be so independent.It can be MODIFIED to suit the POLTITICAL needs and demands and conditions of the RULING ELITE WITH VESTED INTERESTS. A CHANGE IN NAME WITHOUT A CHANGE IN SUSTANCE IS A MERE ILLUSION TO HOODWINK THE RAKYAT. IT MAY BE WELL-PLANNED SYSTEM TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE HIGHLY CORRUPTED LEGALLY USING OUR OWN GUIDED ‘SYSTEM OF RULE OF LAW’
Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government. That truism has practically reduced our options to only one – a change of political leadership. That is, if we are still serious about restoring the rule of law and the pursuit of excellence for the country.
The scope of the Attorney-General’s powers in these institutions, there is still the question of integrity of the key office-holders who helm these institutions – chief justice, attorney general, inspector general of police and director general of ACA. It is often said that one may have the best laws in the world, but if we have crooks to implement them, the good laws may come to nothing.
Well said Mr Kim Quek.
: A-G must oversee legality of RAJA AZIZ ADDRUSE & DING JO-ANN
After the initial arrest under section 73(1) of the ISA, the minister had subsequently made an order under section 8 of the act for him to be detained for two years. This order has now been declared unconstitutional and ultra vires by the cour t.
The question that needs to be asked is how it is that such powers are now being exercised with what appears to be scant regard for the fundamental rights, liberties and freedoms guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
Should those conferred with such drastic powers not be advised as to the limits of their power and of their responsibility in the exercise of such power s? The person who is constitutionally entrusted with the function of advising the government and ministers of government on such matters is the attor ney-general. It is his constitutional duty to uphold the Federal Constitution and citizens’ fundamen – tal liberties as guaranteed under Part II of the Federal Constitution.
It would have been the attorneygeneral’s duty to advise the police and the home minister that the reasons they gave for arresting Tan and Kok under the ISA did not warrant the exercise of power under section 73(1) of the ISA.
He should also have advised the police and the minister that there are specific prerequisites which need to be satisfied before the power of arrest and detention under the act can be lawfully invoked.
As is apparent from its preamble, the ISAwas passed by Parliament for the specific purpose of combating “a substantial body of persons” intent on overthrowing the lawful government of this nation by unlawful or unconstitutional means.
The attorney-general should have, in relation to the two-year detention of Raja Petra, also advised the minister that Raja Petra, outspoken though he may be, cannot by himself be considered to be “a substantial body of per sons” and that the order made by the minister for Raja Petra’s detention was, therefore, beyond his power s.
The attorney-general is essentially responsible for overseeing the legality of all government actions and ensuring that they are in accordance with the Federal Constitution, international law and domestic law. It is a heavy responsibility with potentially serious and far-reaching conseq u e n c e s.
In the United Kingdom, for example, the opinion of Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith in 2003 that there was legal basis for an invasion of Iraq heavily influenced the British Parliament’s decision to go to war.
As the attorney-general’s office is also responsible for the drafting of all federal legislation, it is also his duty to ensure that in the drafting of such legislation the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution are upheld.
It would be part of his duty to point out any laws which are inconsistent with those fundamental rights and to recommend that the offending laws be amended or repealed.
For example, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 made it illegal to possess or use a printing press without a licence and to publish newspapers without a permit from the home minister.
The dissemination of information via the printed media was essentially placed under the complete control of the home minister. Further, from 1987, the minister’s decision on the granting, suspension and revocation of permits was removed from the review of the courts.
This negates the media’s freedom of speech, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution, since the home minister has the power to revoke a newspaper’s permit should it publish articles critical of the government and that newspaper would be left with no legal recourse.
Another example is the Official Secrets Act 1972 which makes it an offence to disseminate information classified as an official secret. Any government document may be classified as an official secret by any minister, chief minister or any public officer authorised to do so.
These decisions to classify a document secret are also exempt from review by the courts. Although restrictions on the freedom of speech can be made for reasons of public order or morality, there is again no check and balance or recourse to the courts should any government document be declared an official secret merely because the disclosure of its contents would prove detrimental or embarrassing to the government.
Yet another example is the Police Act 1967 that places restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly by requiring any gathering of three or more persons to obtain a police permit, failing which the gathering could be held to be an “unlawful assembly”.
In 1988, major amendments came into force, making it an offence not only for persons to take part in an unlawful assembly but also to “at t e n d ” and even more onerously, “to be found at” such assemblies.
Innocent passers-by can, therefore, be charged with an offence merely by being present.
The attorney-general should have called the government’s attention to the potential injustice that could be caused by these provisions and even recommended the amendment of the Police Act to bring it more in line with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.
The Police Act should be amended as in essence, it is in conflict with the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
This was the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia in its report on “Freedom of Assembly” published in 2001.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers appears not to have acted on this recommendation to ensure that the provisions of the Police Act are consistent with this right.
The attorney-general, as the chief legal adviser of the government, obviously wields enormous influence in the country. He can influence government actions by providing advice on their legality and is also responsible for the drafting of laws by which the country is governed.
At the moment, there is no adequate check and balance on the exercise of these vast powers granted to him under the Federal Constitution.
It is most desirable that such an important position be open to scrutiny to ensure proper accountability in the exercise of its functions.
It is perhaps time for the attorneygeneral once again to be a member of the cabinet so that his advice is listened to and heeded by his cabinet colleagues and in order that he be made answerable to Parliament, just like any other minister. This is the case in many other Commonwealth countr ies.
In the United Kingdom, for example, Goldsmith was made to answer to Parliament in 2007 on his constitutional role and his legal advice to the government. Such a practice is beneficial as it would encourage the government to think carefully before enacting laws of dubious constitutional consistency or carrying out potentially unlawful acts.
* This is the second of a two-part series. Part One appeared on Nov 9. Raja Aziz Addruse is a former Bar Council president and former president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam). Ding Jo- Ann is a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer
also readthis to understandThackeray,
Touching the heart of Malaysian Race RelationsZaid IbrahimA Malaysian politician dares to speak truth to power
In one of the most important political speeches delivered in Malaysia in recent years, former de-facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim touched on the heart of race relations when he gave a rendition on the evolving racial politics in Malaysia that has so bedevilled the nation for the past few decades.Delivering a speech titled “Malaysia – a lost democracy?” at the Law Asia 2008 conference in Kuala Lumpur on October 31, Zaid recounted how “a shining example of a working democracy” founded half a century ago on the principles of democracy and egalitarianism has degenerated into an authoritarian racist state that is now characterized by incessant racial and religious dissension and economic malaise.When the country achieved independence in 1957, then Malaya was a model of parliamentary democracy, governed under a written constitution “that accorded full respect and dignity for each and every Malayan.” If at all there was a social contract – which should mean the pre-independence consensus reached among the founding fathers representing the various communities – it must be one “that guaranteed equality and the rule of law,” as subsequently reflected in the federal constitution.The racial riots in 1969 changed the balance of political power, and the United Malays National Organisation, through the enlarged coalition of Barisan Nasional, eventually assumed absolute control of the country. With its coalition partners unable to put up any resistance, UMNO became increasingly racist and the master affirmative action plan known as the New Economic Policy (NEP), which was intended to eliminate poverty and redress economic imbalance, became synonymous with Malay privileges. By the 1980s, UMNO’s supremacist ideology became entrenched and found expression in “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay supremacy) and it was then that the term “social contract” started to be flashed around to justify its racist conduct.In parallel with the growth of racism was the steep rise in authoritarianism through amendments to the constitution and tightening a host of repressive laws. The rule of law became so subverted that democracy in Malaysia became history.
return to — that MALAYSIA is the land of extraordinary opportunity and possibility, where miracles happen.”
(NST) KUALA LUMPUR: A leading constitutional legal expert said an inquest is mandatory under the Criminal Procedure Code, more so in cases of sudden death.
Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, a professor of law at Universiti Teknologi Mara, agreed with Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s statement on the need for an inquiry before a magistrate in the case of Teoh Beng Hock.
He said there was also nothing in the law which stated that a Royal Commission could not be set up at the same time as an inquest.
Gani had said that the Royal Commission, being set up under Section 2 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, was to inquire into the conduct and management of government officers and departments, or for the public welfare.
Gani added that it was only proper for a court of law to determine the cause of death.
Shad Faruqi said: “We should not be so concerned about constitutional procedures or processes but more with the result or outcome. That is more important.
“As long as justice prevails, we should be satisfied. It is not the form but the substance that matters.”
He said the inquiry must be allowed to take questions related to the circumstances surrounding Teoh’s fall.
“Hard questions should be asked, and the right people and forensic evidence brought in.” He said an inquest would also allow for the exhumation of a body.
In Petaling Jaya yesterday, DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang called for a halt to the inquest into Teoh’s death to allow for the cabinet to review and widen the terms of reference for the Royal Commission.
If they really wants a legal advise why go to this Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi,who is not a legal expert but a wage earner of Barisan. Please refer for advice from the English Law experts. But the Government is not serious. Gani Patil is a Gujerati Mamak brought in by the Malabari (Kaka) Mamak after the Anwar’s case. He is a number 1Malaysia ball carrier of UMNO. Pariah Gujerati Mamak.You know very well that you are talking rubbish.
Why did you not ask for inquests for the THOUSANDS of sudden deaths while under police custody?
Do not take us for fools. We know the law and we know they are man made.
We want a Royal Commission to find out ALL about Teoh’s death. With due respect to the Magistrate who will be leading the inquest, we know that some Magistrates are just fresh out of Law School and very wet behind the years.
Can you imagine a fresh house officer performing the post mortem. In the end, nobody will ever know what happened.
So, Prof, just SHUT UP!
No comments:
Post a Comment