Is the AG despite all the blunders and irresponsible actions is protected by MAHATHIR? Losing Pulau Batu Putih by doctoring the photo itself is a crime. Selective prosecution and mingling with criminals like Shahidan Shafie and Tajuddin Ramli, is unspeakable behavior.
Why has the Prime Minister not done to him the way the Minister of Home Affairs did to former IGP Musa Hassan. The former IGP who never had a degree was recently awarded a doctorate (honoris causa) by one of the local universities.
It is imperative that the Attorney General’s wide powers be subject to close scrutiny and not be permitted to be exercised arbitrarily.
Perfectly legal, but not necessarily good
Laws must be good and have an ethical foundation, for without such a foundation we can so easily slide into barbarism cloaked behind a thin veneer of legality.
A NATION ruled by law not men — a concept that demands our behaviour be determined by a set of principles and not by our own desires. As an ideal, it is a leveller, a protector, for at its core is the idea that power should not be abused.
Power takes many forms, some simple and base, whereas others are more complex. At its most simplistic level, a healthy 200lb, 6ft tall 20-year-old man is far more powerful than a frail 70-year-old pensioner.
This does not, however, give him the right to knock the old man down and rob him. There are laws against assault and theft.
But power is not merely about physical strength, it is also about authority. In a modern state, we give a lot of that authority to governments and government agencies. This is a necessity for governance in large complex societies.
What this means is that some ordinary men and women find themselves with tremendous power over their fellow citizens.
I can’t walk the streets with a pistol in my pocket, but every day I see men with guns. Usually they are directing traffic.
What is there to stop these armed men from pulling out their weapon and shooting someone? Absolutely nothing, except perhaps, their own conscience.
However, one can’t be overdependent on an individual’s moral compass, and so we have laws. And everyone is subject to these laws, even those — no, especially those — who have been given powers greater than the average citizen.
It ought to be remembered though that these laws must also be good laws. They must have an ethical foundation for, without such foundations, you have barbarism cloaked behind a thin veneer of legality.
Let us not forget, for example, that the atrocities of the Second World War committed by the Nazis on Jews and other people considered below their Aryan perfection, were perfectly legal according to the laws of Hitler’s Germany.
These were the thoughts that played on my mind upon reading the news of the last few days. The arrest and alleged beating of Selvach Santhiran on Oct 25, the very day that he testified against the police in the R. Gunasegaran death-in-custody case is very worrying indeed.
The police have arrested him under the country’s drug laws, but the close proximity between his testifying against them and his arrest is suspicious to say the least.
Furthermore, if his family’s allegations are true, why was there a need to beat the man in front of his children after he had been arrested and was no longer a physical threat?
The court had reached an open verdict on Gunasegaran’s case, meaning the judge was unable to conclude the reason for his death, despite the fact that three witnesses testified that he was beaten.
This judgment itself has been criticised, but it is what it is. S. Selvach had testified in a court of law, and the judge had made a decision. He had done nothing wrong and in fact had fulfilled a civic duty.
If his arrest had anything to do with his testimony, there is reason to be concerned. Concern for the apparent example of “rule by man”, and concern for the safety of the other two witnesses, Ravi Subramaniam and Suresh Subbaiah, who are also in police custody.
Another news item that caught my eye was the arrest of Teoh Lee Lan. She is the sister of the late Teoh Beng Hock and she was arrested along with some of her friends for distributing leaflets at Galas amid the by-election campaign.
She and her group, “Malaysians for Beng Hock,” have been campaigning hard to raise awareness about the case and to press that the truth be uncovered regarding Beng Hock’s tragic death two years ago while in the custody of the MACC.
Her arrest was made on the grounds that she broke election laws and was “campaigning” in a manner that was promoting feelings of ill-will. Whether these reasons are justifiable is extremely debatable as she was not representing any political party.
But what we see here is the use of a law to prevent a person from expressing her legitimate concerns. If a law is used to favour one group over another, if it is not enforced in a neutral manner, then it is just as bad as having a poor law or no law at all and it will be yet another example of a nation ruled by men and not laws.
These examples are important to us as a nation because they show a disregard of the principle that I stated at the beginning of this column.
And this is a principle that has to be adhered to for it is a civilising ideal without which we can so easily slide into barbarism, and surely that is not something one would wish for one’s own country.
Dr Azmi Sharom is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely his own.
Nazri Aziz: The Government has agreed to consider allegations against the overzealous Attorney General
by S Pathmawathy@www.malaysiakini.com
Opposition parliamentarian Lim Kit Siang failed to persuade the Dewan Rakyat to deduct RM10 from Attorney-General (AG) Abdul Gani Patail’s salary for failure to discharge his duties, but the government has agreed to consider the allegations against him.
The Overzealous Attorney General who lost the Pulau Batu Puteh Case
In an unprecedented move today, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, popularly known as Chief in Parliament,said that he will refer the claims against Abdul Gani (above) to the cabinet before the government decides on its next move.
In his motion today, Lim cited to a large extent the open testimony of former Kuala Lumpur Crime Investigation Department (CID) chief Mat Zain Ibrahim who accused several prominent government figures of meddling with evidence in the Anwar Ibrahim ‘black-eye’ case.
Lim (DAP-Ipoh Timor) tabled the motion at the Supply Bill 2011 committee stage debate. “Abdul Gani stands accused of fabricating evidence in Anwar Ibrahim’s black eye investigation in 1998. It stands unrebutted although made by the police officer responsible for the investigation 12 years ago,” said Lim.
Lim ) read out paragraphs from an email he had received from Mat Zain defending his credibility. Mat Zain had been accused of fabricating evidence relating to the ‘black eye’ incident, together with Abdul Gani and inspector-general of police (IGP) Musa Hassan (while he was senior investigation officer in 1998).
He resurrected Mat Zain’s plea of innocence to the claims and instead pointed the finger at Abdul Gani by recounting how the latter had allegedly interfered in the case.
In July 2008, Anwar filed a police report accusing Abdul Gani, Musa and one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof and Mat Zain of falsifying a medical report on his ‘black eye’ case, and this was later investigated by the then Anti-Corruption Agency (now renamed Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency, MACC).
The authorities later cleared Musa and Abdul Gani of the allegations, but the status of Mat Zain and Abdul Rahman remains uncertain.
Was it a deliberate conspiracy? However, Lim said that despite continuous pressure, the Home Ministry had failed to provide a “satisfactory” reply on the matter.
“I’m shocked that Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein did not reply to me at all on Mat Zain’s damning indictment of the criminal justice system and when I asked him why there was no response him when he sat down at the end of his two-hour long winding-up speech, he gave an outrageous reply that I never raised the matter in my two-hour speech.
“Either the home minister was dishonest or he had been deceived by his officers, which means the home minister is not the master of his ministry.
“How could this happen, unless it is part of a deliberate conspiracy to ignore and cover up the biggest scandal in the history of criminal justice in Malaysia,” slammed Lim.
He also asked why the AG closed the case involving private investigator P Balasubramaniam and his damning statutory declarations in July 2008, implicating Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu. In an immediate reaction, Balasubramaniam insisted that his second statutory declaration was false, and he urged the authorities to reopen the case.
“Is the AG prepared to take up Balasubramaniam’s challenge and charge him with the crime of making a false statutory declaration and if not, why not?” demanded Lim.
He said failure to push for action against Balasubramaniam and the allegations had “far-reaching” consequences.
Lim even went further to blame the AG’s silence for the decline in foreign direct investment (FDI) and the brain drain.
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, backing the motion, said that “the crime that was committed with impunity repeats itself”.
He added that just because it involves the opposition so “it is all right” to let it go without any further investigation into Mat Zain’s allegations.
‘Only the AG can defend himself’
But Mohd Nazri, representing the government, argued that the motion should not be passed as the AG should be given a chance to defend himself.
“This is not the place to make such a decision. This notice has not been given to him (AG) he needs to come before the House to defend himself,” he said.
“We want to avoid a kangaroo court (but) if we do this it will a kangaroo court,” he said, adding that instead he will take the concerns raised to the cabinet for further action.
During voting after the motion was debated, deputy speaker Ronald Kiandee caused an uproar when he mistakenly said that there are more voices saying ‘yea’ than ‘nay’ although it was clear that there were more MPs saying ‘nay’.
The opposition legislators immediately stood up and clapped, but Kiandee tried to correct his mistake by retracting his remark, saying that there were more ‘nays’.
This then led to the opposition crying foul. Ignoring their protest, he then called for voting en bloc after 15 opposition members stood up in protest.
However, as the government holds the parliamentary majority, the motion was denied after 85 voted against it while 50 supported the motion.
