The Judiciary hasn't really changed: THE CASE OF ROSLI DAHLAN

by Din Merican

When Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted of Sodomy II on January 9, there was stunned reaction nationwide. Numerous interpretations came about, not least that this was the Politics of the Prosecution (or “Persecution” to be more apt).

Senior Lawyer Tommy Thomas wrote a most eloquent piece titled “Why was Anwar Ibrahim acquitted?” and suggested that Sodomy II was all about politics, and nothing but politics. That this was gutter politics of a new meaning where no political leaders across the globe had been the victim of such dirty state politics as Anwar.

Thus, the decision to acquit Anwar was about the Politics of Acquittal, that the trial judge did not actually make the decision himself, but it was in reality a political decision. That is the perception of most Malaysians (including lawyers) that in “political” cases the Courts are not independent of the Executive.

Tommy Thomas (left) suggested that one way to analyse judicial independence is by reviewing the trial judge’s overall conduct and he concluded that the judge’s acquittal was a U-turn of massive proportions which contradicted all his prior rulings against Anwar during the trial.

Malaysians shouldn’t be euphoric in heralding the dawn of a new era in judicial independence and that “Anwar’s acquittal will not be the harbinger of better things to come from the judiciary. One swallow does not make a summer!”

The Case of Rosli Dahlan: Gross Injustice and Victimisation of a Professional

That was indeed just one swallow if we are to judge the judiciary by the case of my dear young friend Lawyer Rosli Dahlan. Readers would remember that the MACC brutalised Rosli for defending Dato Ramli Yusuff, the former CCID Director, who was fixed by the Unholy Trinity- former IGP Musa Hassan, the MACC and AG Gani Patail.

Dato Ramli Yusuff and Rosli Dahlan had exposed Musa Hassan’s complicity in the Ah Long syndicate and also the Malaysian Airline Systems (MAS) Scandal involving its former chairman Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli. Both Ramli and Rosli were fixed so that these matters can be canned.

Recently, the MAS Scandal resurfaced when Minister in the PM’s Dept, Dato Seri Nazri Aziz, directed several GLCs including MAS to sack their lawyers and appoint the UMNO lawyer Datuk Hafarizam Harun (see the BN and UMNO logos proudly displayed on this firm’s website at: http://hafazmir.com/v2/) so that the cases against Tajudin can be closed.

MAS Issue unresolved--Why?

Speculation is rife that Tajudin Ramli is protected because he has damaging information about UMNO leaders in the plundering of the national airlines. MAS was at the brink of bankruptcy if not for the WAU (Widespread Asset Unbundling) scheme that allowed MAS to soar again. And the MAS/Air Asia deal is now viewed with grave suspicion as a repeat of all past misconducts which was why Rosli got into trouble with Dato’ Ramli in the first place.

In order to fix Rosli, the MACC served on him an invalid notice to declare his assets whereas he had never been a civil servant and was just a private sector lawyer. Although Rosli replied to that notice and declared his asset under protest, still the MACC brutally arrested him and charged him in a most humiliating and sensational way just one day before Hari Raya of 2007.

Rosli then filed an application in the Civil High Court called a Judicial Review to declare that what the MACC did was wrong. The A-G Chambers took a technical argument that the invalidity of the notice cannot be raised by Judicial Review but should be raised during the trial in the criminal court. On the other hand, during both Rosli’s and Ramli’s criminal trials, the A-G Chambers argued that the invalid notice cannot be challenged in the criminal case but should be challenged by Judicial Review in the civil courts. Clearly, AG Gani Patail is being dishonest by blowing hot and cold.

Eventually, Sessions Judges M. Gunalen and Abu Bakar Katar held that the notices against Dato Ramli and Rosli Dahlan were invalid and unlawful which means the MACC fixed them up! It is amazing that A-G Gani Patail has filed appeals against the acquittals of Dato’ Ramli and Rosli whereas there is total lethargy to prosecute Tajudin Ramli in the MAS scandal, Shahrizat Jalil in the NFC scandal, and Awang Adek for openly admitting that he received money and gratification in his personal account. And former Tourism Minister and incumbent MP Azalina Othman Said who recently admitted to accepting a bribe.

From my friends in the Palace of Justice, I heard that Rosli’s appeal for leave to file the Judicial Review came up in the Court of Appeal yesterday 19th January before Justices KN Segara, Clement Skinner and Anantham Kasinather. To save AG Gani Patail (right) from embarrassment for his inconsistent stand, these Court of Appeal Judges said that Rosli’s appeal was academic as he was already acquitted by the Sessions Court and forced the appeal to be withdrawn.

Hearing all these from my friends in the Palace of Justice made me very sad. Tommy Thomas was right that nothing has really changed, that it is too early to expect better things from the judiciary. The bully and underhand tactics used against Rosli is revolting to me.

I asked Rosli for tea with some friends to see if he was alright. Unlike previously, this time, Rosli did not try to avoid me. He seemed calm and collected when I tried to console him. There was a tinge of sadness in his eyes which he tried to hide by his charming dimpled smile.

Despite all my goading, he refused to talk about his case. When I asked what he planned to do next, he laughed and jestingly quoted Anwar’s war cry – “Lawan Tetap Lawan!”

That was enough for me to know that Rosli has the resolve to continue fighting on for the justice that was robbed off him.

I agree with Tommy Thomas that Anwar’s acquittal provides the best opportunity for the electorate to have a clear choice as to which coalition should be given the privilege of governing Malaysia for the next five years. A true two-party system must occur this time.

If we are to have true change and justice for all, then there must be a political tsunami that will change the landscape like the Malay proverb “Sekali air bah, sekali pantai berubah!”.

The Maminco Affair and the Politics of the 1980s

by Terence Netto@www.malaysiakini.com

The spot of contention between Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim over whether the former Prime Minister had indeed taken loans from the World Bank during the period of the Asian Financial Crisis (1997-1998) is interesting in the way it is reminiscent of an episode at the tailend of the premiership of Tun Hussein Onn.

The matter concerned Malaysia’s attempt to corner the tin market on the London exchange which resulted in the collapse of the price of the commodity in 1981, with consequent huge losses to the country’s exchequer. It was called the Maminco Affair, details of which began to seep into the public domain a few years after the collapse of the price of tin, once a top-earning commodity to the country.

When the Maminco Affair began to leak into the public sphere, Tun Hussein (right), who had retired as Prime Minsiter in the middle of 1981, was already in a state of advanced disenchantment with the way things were going under chosen successor Mahathir.

He gave vent to his misgivings at press conferences held immediately after functions where he had received donations from the private sector for the Tun Hussein Onn Eye Hospital, a project being built under his patronage.

His publicly aired qualms, on a host of issues in which he favoured the liberal line to the authoritarian one that Mahathir was beginning to tread, were increasingly embarrassing to the incumbent PM.

This was at a time when the billion-ringgit Bank Bumiputra Finance scandal was being exposed to national attention and the Mahathir administration had assumed a high spending aura, what with the Dayabumi project and the palatial prime ministerial home at Sri Perdana, that were either completed or in the works.

The era of edifice complexes, with their attendant inflated costs and huge wastage - an unnerving throwback to the days of oriental potentates - had begun.

Hussein was clearly unhappy with the goings-on but because of the indirection and reticence that characterise Malay political discourse, it was difficult at that time to infer whether there was anything more substantive to the elder statesman’s discontent than the mere grumpiness and disdain of age.

Which PM was responsible?

At the time, Hussein enjoyed a high standing in the public perception because of the way he gracefully stepped aside from wanting a second term as the elected UMNO President, to give way to a younger and seemingly more dynamic breed of successors.

Thus when he sustained his tone of public remonstrance, he became a liability to the Mahathir administration. That’s when the Maminco Affair began to dribble into the media headlines.

Because the timeline on the matter raised questions about which PM was responsible for the affair and under whose watch it had occurred, Hussein was quick to disavow any responsibility for the matter, although the collapse of the tin market had occurred in 1981.

The early part of that year saw Hussein on medical leave because of a heart bypass operation in London. This was followed by a period when he was in the country but largely convalescent and contemplating retirement which became the reality by April when he tearfully announced his decision not to contest the Sri Gading (in Johor, his home state) UMNO division chairman’s post.

When the Maminco debacle sizzled in the national arena a few years later, the matter of who was responsible for the decision to corner the tin market became critical to the whole question of apportioning blame.

A public pummeled by the steady drip of controversial disclosure over the BMF and other burgeoning scandals was in the mood for blame-fixing. Hussein was confident he was not responsible while Mahathir was discreetly mute about responsibility for the matter.

Mahathir is always careful to show he is not an ingrate to people who have helped him. His appointment as Deputy Prime Minister in April 1976 by Hussein was the most significant act of political supercession, over the more pressing claims of others, since Tunku Abdul Rahman favoured Abdul Razak Hussein over Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman as his UMNO deputy in the mid-1950s, and Razak’s selection of Hussein himself for the same position after Ismail had suddenly died in August 1973.

Hussein humiliated

Thus, after a spell of public contention over who was responsible for the Maminco Affair, Mahathir gave permission for cabinet meeting minutes to be exposed.It showed that in the final few meetings Hussein chaired in mid-1981, a decision was made to corner the tin market.

There followed the spectacle of a humiliated Hussein giving vent to a public apology over his responsibility while ex-premier Tunku Abdul Rahman (left) aired his anguish that the whole thing was highly unfair to Hussein.

In extenuation, the Tunku said he himself was on long leave prior to his retirement in September 1970 and so could not be held responsible for decisions made just prior.

The abiding memory of that incident was Hussein’s apology, promptly tendered when notified of the cabinet minutes. He offered no extenuations, excuses, or exculpations. He just bowed his head in abject submission to what was the seeming truth of the matter of responsibility for Maminco.

But the jury is still out on who was really responsible for Maminco because the case is like several other issues of great moment in Malaysian history, like the Project IC in Sabah and a host of others - too many to name, simply because these are like a Pandora's box of horrors.

No doubt, these issues would soon come under the ferreting thrust of multiple truth commissions whose sittings would be deemed necessary as and when these matters bob like cork on the sea of recurrent public concerns.

Like buried gold, the truth will have to be disinterred because it is useless otherwise, and simply cannot stay entombed for long.

The Dangers of Judicial Corruption

By William Leong Jee Keen (received by e-mail and partially edited by Din Merican)

MP SPEAKS: Tay Choo Foo, a Barisan National-friendly businessman, has lost all confidence in the Malaysian Judiciary. When he was sued, he was sure the courts would throw out the case. To Tay, the claim was a fabrication of lies.

To his horror, the court accepted the hearsay evidence from the claimant’s witness and threw out his testimony. The High Court ordered him to pay RM13 million. The Court of Appeal and the Federal Court upheld the High Court judgment. Tay feels like a victim of sexual assault; he feels violated except he does not have a video to prove it.

Alexander Hamilton warned of Injustice

Tay now realises from bitter experience what Alexander Hamilton (right) warned Americans in 1787, more than 200 years earlier in the Federalist Papers, that: “A steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws” is essential because “no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be the gainer today.”

Tay is writing a book entitled ‘Lawless’ to warn Malaysians of the dangers of judicial corruption and to stir citizens into action. The question is whether Malaysians, having been warned, will act on it. When it mattered most, Malaysians did not act.

In 1988, Malaysians did not speak out when Dr Mahathir Mohamad sacked the Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas and the five Federal Court judges. In 1998, many stood by when he sacked Anwar Ibrahim, his Deputy Prime Minister and the courts convicted and put him in jail for six years.

The Federal Court judges, who had dedicated their entire career to the principle of upholding the Rule of Law, became victims of the Rule of Man. They suffered a grave injustice at the hand of Mahathir in being sacked, disgraced and robbed of their personal dignity and self-esteem. The monetary payment given 20 years later by Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi can never compensate for their pain and suffering.

An even graver injustice was visited on Anwar Ibrahim when he was arrested, beaten and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. All this was done for the sole purpose of destroying his political career in order to prolong that of others. It is not just heinous, it is evil. The Federal Court judges were sacked and the Deputy Prime Mby theiinister was imprisoned for political purposes.

Economic entities also gain influence over the courts

Malaysians by their timidity and indifference allowed political powers to exert influence over the Judiciary for political ends. They did not realise that like in all usual public private initiatives, economic entities would also gain influence over the courts. Thus were spawned judicial decisions that:

• Interfered with the shareholding control of a public listed company such as the infamous Insas Bhd v Ayer Molek Rubber Co Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 833;

• Allowed multi-million ringgit defamation suits against MCG Pillay, Param Cumaraswamy, Raphael Pura, Tommy Thomas and Skrine & Co for writing about judicial corruption;

• Allowed contempt cases to be instituted against Zainur Zakaria, Tommy Thomas, Manjit Singh and prosecution of Karpal Singh who dared to challenge the unfairness of court proceedings;

• Allowed a forger to acquire indefeasible title to property such as the Federal Court decision in Adorna Properties v Boonsom Boonyanit [2001] 1 MLJ 241 that made our country a forger’s haven for 10 years until corrected by the case of Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San [2010] 2 MLJ 1 FC;

• Ordered an insurance company to pay an arsonist who set fire to his own factory to claim on his insurance policy and dismissed the insurance company’s application for review in Asean Security Paper Mill v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 377.

In Tay’s case, the administrators of the estate of Tunku Mansur (deceased) sued him for the purchase price of 1.2 million Harrisons Holdings Berhad shares. Tay contended that the shares were given to him by Tunku Mansur as commission for arranging an investor to participate in the management buy-out led by Tunku Mansur.

The High Court allowed the hearsay evidence of a purported conversation between the witness and Tunku Mansur to be admitted under section 32(1) (b) of the Evidence Act. Until the Federal Court upheld the High Court decision, section 32(1) (b) of the Evidence Act is accepted of only allowing a statement made by a deceased clerk in the entry of account books and records kept in the ordinary course of business.

Tunku Mansur was not a deceased clerk but a respected member of the Kedah Royal Family and an outstanding and high powered corporate executive, and the statement was not an accounting entry or documents kept in the ordinary course of business. The Federal Court held that section 132(1) (b) should be given a broad and liberal interpretation. The Federal Court decision adopted a new approach that differed from what lawyers and academicians knew about section 32(1) (b).

The decision may be a development of the law but it gave rise to the issue of satisfying the requirements of certainty and predictability which is so essential to the legitimacy of judicial decisions. There are many more cases that are not reported.

I have a friend who lost his family business built over several generations to a third party despite non-compliance of the clear provisions of the law. He dared not challenge the matter in the courts because the third party is well connected. Political connections matter in Malaysia, not the Rule of Law.

Many are suffering in silence

If the rich are fearful to fight for their rights, the weak, the poor and the disadvantaged have no chance at all. Many are, therefore, suffering in silence. This is because we did not speak up when it was needed to.

In 2008, this cycle of political interference has been repeated. The 2nd edition of the Anwar Ibrahim (Sodomy 2) trials was instituted to clip the opposition’s momentum after the 12th general election. The Guardian in its strongly worded editorial on December 13, 2011 described what the Malaysian courts will do to Anwar as an egregious travesty of justice. The last vestiges of the Judiciary’s legitimacy will be lost on January 9, 2012 if Anwar is convicted of a crime he did not commit. All evidence presented by experts in his defence has been ignored.

The public knows there is a clear distinction between a legitimate system of law and a mere system of commands forcibly enforced. It is not necessary for the public to be lawyers or legally trained to know whether a judicial decision is legitimate or not. Each of us has a built-in antenna that can sense the truth from a lie, and whether a judicial decision is fair or unjust.

The public can detect Judges, who while hiding behind a veneer of fairness, make intellectually dishonest decisions. They make procedural and evidential rulings to admit into evidence facts favourable to the outcome they want. They shut out facts that would make it inconvenient for them to arrive at the desired outcome. They are thus able to write impeccable decisions by adopting the applicable laws to the selected evidence.

However, to the losing litigant and the public such decisions are complied with only because of the coercive force the Court can bring to bear. The decisions are not accepted as expressions of legal and valid authority. They totally lacked legitimacy.

It is public confidence that gives legitimacy to the judiciary and its decisions. To enjoy public confidence the Judiciary must honour the values and principles of consistency, coherence, legal certainty, predictability and not the least justice and objectivity. The civil society must always be vigilant and remind the Judges of their sacred duty to uphold the law and administer justice.

Sandra Day O’Connor said: “If judges are to be independent guardians of rule of law values, they must be incorruptible. Judges are entrusted with ultimate decisions over life, freedoms, duties, rights, and property of citizens.

“But judges will never win the respect of the citizens if they are subject to corrupt influences. Whenever a judge makes a decision for personal gain, or to curry favour, or to avoid censure, that act denigrates the Rule of Law... If the Judiciary is perceived as being corrupt, biased, or otherwise unethical, society’s confidence in the legal system and its respect for the Rule of Law will crumble.”

‘Anwar trials lacked legitimacy’

The public is aware that the two Anwar Ibrahim trials in the late 1990s lacked legitimacy:

• In the first, Anwar Ibrahim’s trial for corruption, the judge attracted adverse worldwide criticism for the manner he conducted the trial. The Judge threatened and charged defence counsel with contempt for complaining the court was not impartial and fair.

The words “Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant!” were uttered so often that it was only matched 10 years later by a subsequent refrain of “Correct! Correct! Correct!” The trial did not meet the requirement of impartiality, justice and objectivity.

• In the second, Anwar Ibrahim’s first trial for sodomy, the High Court judge had applied the wrong law in convicting Anwar. It is a well established law that the court cannot convict on uncorroborated evidence of the complainant in a sexual offence. The Judge can only do so upon reminding himself of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence.

The Judge is required to set out in his judgment the reasons he found the complainant’s evidence were sufficiently convincing to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court Judge failed to do this and the Court of Appeal failed to pick up this error.

It was only after the change of Prime Ministers that the Federal Court pointed out that the complainant’s evidence lacked credibility and that the confession of sodomy was extracted by torture and improper means. The trial did not meet the standards of consistency and coherence to existing legal principles.

In the 2008 edition of the Anwar trials, Ragunath Kesavan (left), chairperson of the Malaysian Bar Council, said that the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss Anwar’s application for access to key evidence was a regressive decision. The decision contradicted the clear language and intent of Parliament in section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The section imposed on the prosecution a statutory duty to provide to the accused before the commencement of the trial the documents that the prosecution intended to use at the trial. This was made in the interest of enhancing an accused person’s right to a fair trial.

By barring Anwar access to CCTV footage, medical reports, chemist reports and witness statements, Anwar was severely and unfairly impaired in defending himself. The Federal Court decision did not meet the standard of coherence, consistency, certainty and predictability, impartiality and justice.

Anwar applied under Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 to review the Federal Court’s decision in dismissing his application for disclosure under section 51A Criminal Procedure Code. The second Federal Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to review an earlier Federal Court decision.

Former Judge NH Chan said that the decision fly in the face of the plain words of Rule 137. Rule 137 provides that nothing shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the court to hear any application or make any order as may be necessary to prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The Federal Court decision was clearly incoherent and inconsistent with the clear words of the Rule.

The trial was filled with rulings on procedural and evidential matters that left the public with the distinct feeling that the decisions did not satisfy the standards and values of impartiality, legality, certainty, predictability, transparency and justice.

‘A bad taste in the mouth’

International and domestic observers with a sense of fair play have a bad taste in the mouth at the injustice perpetrated. The New York Times in an article published on December 13, 2011 reported that human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticised the trial.

Condemnation has also come from Al Gore, former US Vice President who, with Paul D Wolfowitz, the former US Deputy Secretary of Defence, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the trial “threatens not just Mr Anwar but all those who have struggled for a freer and more democratic nation”.

Malaysians had twice missed the call to stand up and speak out against injustice in 1988 and 1998. If we miss the third chance on January 9, 2011, it will be strike three and Malaysia shall be struck out.

It is, therefore, not inappropriate to recall the famous words of Martin Niemoller who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist;
Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Trade Unionist;
Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me- and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Niemoller’s quotation reminds us that the people were complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution and murder of millions of people. We will similarly by our silence be complicit in the erosion of our society’s foundation.

By staying neutral, by keeping silent, we will allow the Rule of Law to be replaced by the Rule of Man, criminals to go unpunished, the innocent to be denied of a fair trial, the poor losing out to the rich and the strong over the weak.

This country has deteriorated not because of bad people but because good people did not stand up and speak out against injustice. Edmund Burke said, "[A]ll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Tay is now standing up and speaking out. Many more must do so otherwise, they will take Anwar, then Tay and when they finally come for you, no one will be left to speak for you.

The Alleged Plagiariser Judge is still around

by S Pathmawathy@www.malaysiakini.com

Veteran lawyer Karpal Singh today renewed his call for Court of Appeal Judge Abdul Malik Ishak's resignation for keeping mum on the allegation of plagiarism made against the Judge.

Demanding that Justice Abdul Malik quit in the public interest, Karpal said the judge had committed a "serious act of misconduct".

"He is no more a fit and proper person to continue to hold the high office in the Court of Appeal. It goes without saying that his continued occupation of that high office is an embarrassment to the Judiciary," said Karpal, who is also the DAP's Bukit Gelugor MP.

The allegation against the Judge was first reported in 2000 and caused a row between Singapore and Malaysia. Former Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Rais Yatim, who held the law and parliamentary affairs portfolio when Singapore authorities lodged the complaint in 2000, has said he does not the know the outcome of the complaint as he had left the portfolio in 2004.

Retired Singapore Judge GP Selvam brought up the issue when he claimed that his judgment had been plagiarized in a copyright matter. According to reports quoting Selvam, the Malaysian Judge had backdated his judgment as if to reflect it was his own.

Karpal had sent a letter to the judge on August 22 and given him seven days to respond. However, there has been none to date. The senior lawyer wrote another letter on September 29, informing the Judge that since he did not reply to the claim of plagiarism, it amounted to an admission of the misconduct.

On October 4, while Parliament was in session, Karpal, submitted a motion - supported by 59 Pakatan Rakyat MPs - calling for a tribunal against Abdul Malik to answer to the plagiarism charge.

“You have, despite your silence all along over the serious allegations I’ve made against you, if untrue, the remedy to sue me for defamation as I’m going public on the allegation,” said Karpal, in a letter that was delivered by hand to Abdul Malik yesterday.

He offered Abdul Malik another seven days to counter the claims, otherwise take the silence as a “public admission” of being guilty of plagiarism.

'The Speaker should hold sway'

As Parliament was adjourned on December 1, Karpal’s private motion lapsed, as it is in the powers of the ruling government to call the shots when it comes to motions. This, Karpal added, should not be the way. “Rightfully, it should be the speaker who should hold sway regarding proceedings in Parliament.”

Prior to this the identity of the judge was blanked out by the media, pending the right to reply to the allegations. However, it was finally published by Malaysiakini when Karpal appeared before the alleged plagiarist, Judge Abdul Malik Ishak, asking for his recusal to hear an appeal in a case related to a drug offence.

Prior to the accusation against Abdul Malik of having committed plagiarism, the judge had heard an appeal related to Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim’s second sodomy charge. In the course of the appeal, Abdul Malik had allegedly maligned Anwar and his lawyer Karpal in a written judgment.

Upon appeal at the Federal Court, however, the comments were expunged. Asked if Karpal had a personal vendetta against the judge following the remarks, he said: “I’ve nothing personal against him. This is just out of public interest.”

Peaceful Assembly Bill Passed

The much-criticised Peaceful Assembly Bill was passed at the Dewan Negara today (December 20), merely 22 days after it was pushed through the Dewan Rakyat last month.

The Bill was tabled by Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department VK Liew in the afternoon and passed after nearly four hours of debates. Senate President Abu Zahar Nika Ujang allowed all senators to take part in the debate. However, only six BN senators and four Pakatan Rakyat senators offered their views.

The Bill was passed after bloc voting, with 39 senators supporting the new legislation that prohibits street demonstrations, while eight senators opposed it.

Bloc voting was requested by a Pakatan senator to record their discontent with the problematic law. UMNO senator Abdul Rahman Bakar quipped that the move was only a waste of time, and passed his “condolences” to those on the opposition bench.

During the debate, PKR senator Syed Husin Ali (left) retorted that the Bill overrides the provisions under the Federal Constitution as Article 10(1)(b) accords the people with the right to assemble peacefully.

He argued that although the legislative body has the powers to enact laws to restrict freedom, the Peaceful Assembly Bill is being mooted to completely wipe out the right to street protest.

“The constitution is the highest law in the country, all the laws should be subject to it,” he said, adding that the constitution is “weak” as it has been amended more than 170 times.

Syed Husin also took on the Police, accusing them of being the provokers during peaceful assemblies and rallies.

“They are the one who cause trouble (to the protesters),” he reiterated, citing the hullabaloo that transpired during the Bersih 2.0 rally on July 9 where the police were criticised for manhandling the participants.When the people are ready to disperse, only then will the police chase after them. This is the cause of the chaos,” he said.

Comparatively, in other democratic nations the Police would cooperate with protesters to facilitate the rally instead using force to disperse the gathering.

‘Bill necessary to curb untoward incidents’

Liew, who wound up the proceeding, picked on Syed Husin’s reference to Bersih 2.0, saying that it was Batu PKR MP Tian Chua who caused the melee in KL Sentral by “provoking the Police”.

Justifying the Bill, he said it is necessary to curb untoward incidents during an assembly.NONELiew (right) also picked on the walkout staged by Pakatan parliamentarians during the second reading of the Bill in the Dewan Rakyat, saying that they had missed an opportunity to debate the contentious law.

“They neglected their responsibilities as MPs, they chose to become MPs just to satisfy their political gratifications,” said Liew.

Coming back to the Bill, Liew insisted that as long as peaceful assemblies are confined to the designated places, after the law is gazetted there will be no need to seek Police permission first.

When the Bill was being contemplated in Parliament on Nov 29, members of the Bar Council, flanked by more than 1,000 supporters, marched demanding that the legislation to be withdrawn.

Others found a more unique ways to reject the bill by organising a series of flashmobs at the iconic Kuala Lumpur Twin Towers (KLCC). The activists have been consistently hosting the event every weekend and performing various acts - such as singing around the Christmas tree at the centre court of the mall and picnicking on the grounds.

All I want for Christmas: Goodwill and Compassion Among Malaysians

by Mariam Mokhtar @www.malaysiakini.com

The spirit of Christmas lives on in Malaysia, regardless of race or religion. I know of several non-Christians who have not forgotten the joy of giving and thinking of others before themselves. Some find solace in singing carols in a group. Others delight in thinking about what to get for friends, family or colleagues.

A few join in the season of goodwill by the simple act of volunteering, while others help relieve Christian colleagues who want the day off to celebrate Christmas. Perhaps, there is something about the magic of Christmas, which even diehard Muslim extremists will never destroy.

When I was in primary school, Lembaga Letrik Negara (LLN), the pre-cursor of Tenaga National Bhd, used to hold Christmas parties for children, principally of its employees. It was an event that every child looked forward to eagerly. As Christmas fell during the school holidays, it was another happy occasion that children and parents found welcoming.

It did not matter if the child was Malay, Chinese, Indian or Eurasian. No one bothered if the child who went was Christian or not. It wasn't just the children who were excited. The accompanying parents enjoyed the get-together, which was always held at the Kilat Kelab.

Every child looked forward to receiving a present from Father Christmas. Newcomers would feel intimidated at first, but their shyness would melt away once they were told that Santa was approaching. His noisy arrival was not by reindeer and sled. LLN's Santa came in a bright red "cherry picker", garlanded with tinsel.

The cherry picker would be lowered and Santa would exit with his big sack of goodies. The children would crowd around Santa before rushing off to open their presents.

I believe those care-free days are gone now. A young relative whose birthday falls on Christmas day always persuades her parents to buy a Christmas tree to place her gifts under it. It is all harmless fun but the vitriol she received from social network sites when she proudly showed her decorations online last week, has caused her to question why people can be so nasty, to accuse her of "going against Islamic teachings".

Similarly, a Malay friend who tweeted to his Christian friend "Merry Christmas" received abusive and threatening responses from others who charged him with deviating from Islam.

I'll not be cowed by bigots

Once, when I played Handel's carols on the piano at a friend's house, I received a telling off for playing "Christian" music. I carried on regardless, I refuse to be cowed by a narrow minded bigot.

Although many of my Malay friends and family happily go about celebrating Christmas with our Christian friends, it is alarming to find that in 21st century Malaysia, there are many insecure Muslims. Do they believe that a Muslim who enjoys singing ‘O Come All Ye Faithful", who relishes turkey and stuffing, or the child who delights in decorating Christmas trees, has all but embraced Christianity?

If Muslims who choose to celebrate Christmas with their friends are given a hard time, the Christians in Malaysia must be going through a trying period. They have suffered "persecution" in one form or another, despite Article 11 of the Constitution which guarantees religious freedom for all Malaysians (bar Muslims).

Greetings from a Very Enlightened Muslim

Earlier this year, a furore erupted when Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak attended the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Murphy Xavier Pakiam's Christmas (2010) tea party. Prior to the PM's arrival, church officials had to remove crucifixes and other religious symbols, and told not to sing hymns or pray, in Najib's presence.

In the following months, two consignments of 5,100 and 35,000 copies of the Bible, which were confiscated at Port Klang and Kuching, respectively, in 2009 were released after much wrangling and publicity.

Although Najib ordered Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein to release the copies of the Bible, the Holy Books were defaced, to satisfy two conditions set by the government.

Had the boot been on the other foot...If the boot had been on the other foot, would the Muslim backlash have been as controlled as the one from the Malaysian Christian community? Would Perkasa have run amuck?

There have been other incidents directed against the Christian community, such as the ban on the word "Allah" and the torching of churches.

In this year's Christmas message, Najib reminded Malaysians to "spread goodwill and cheer, just in time to usher in the New Year and make a fresh start" and added that "We could all use a little reminder...." He told Malaysians to "seize every opportunity to forge better understanding between Malaysians of different cultures and faith".

Describing his courtesy visit in July to Pope Benedict XVI at his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, Najib hoped that the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Vatican City and Malaysia, would forge "closer links and inter-faith dialogue".

Najib's Christmas message further described his commitment to "strengthen the interaction that has long exists (sic) with the Christian community. I have always made a special effort to meet with people of all faith (sic). I look forward to continue this practice to seek your ideas and hear your thoughts for the betterment of our society."

The PM said that Malaysia's celebrations were "specific to cultural and religious communities" such as the "gift-giving custom commonly practised during Christmas". He described his fascination with how "the nation's multi-cultural.... multi-religious practices blend into the society".

Najib encouraged fellow Malaysians to understand one another better, and to "appreciate them for the diversity and strength they contribute to our beloved nation".

Perhaps Najib's new attitude in the Christmas message is the result of a blessing from the Pope? Despite all the trials that Malaysian Christians have undergone in recent times, what they do not lack is the spirit of forgiveness.

Events in Malaysia have tested the patience of the rakyat. The faith and trust that we placed in the leaders has been abused and lost.

The bond among the races is strong despite the attempts of the UMNO-BN politicians to break it. But like the message of goodwill, we have not lost the hope that a better Malaysia will evolve.

Cowgate: Is MACC blind to Corruption?

by Kim Quek@www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT Many people may be wondering why the MACC washed its hands off investigation into the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal and passed the buck to the Police. And now, chairman of MACC Abu Kassim Mohamed gives us his answer.

Speaking to Sin Chew Daily reporters after an international conference on December 14, Abu Kassim (right) explained that the complaint MACC received pertained to abuse of a public loan, not abuse of authority; and hence, it is a case under the Criminal Procedure Act to be investigated by the Police, and not a corruption case that falls under the jurisdiction of MACC.

I presume Abu Kassim was referring to the complaint on the use of part of a RM250 million government soft loan to purchase luxurious condos and other personal properties by the family of Wanita Umno chief and Minister of Women, Welfare and Community Development, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.

But hasn't Abu Kassim been acting rather amateurishly as the nation's top corruption buster, akin to the proverbial blind men touching the elephant?

Like an elephant, which is made up of many features, this NFC scandal is a multi-faceted monster that gobbles up large quantities of public funds.

Project riddled with corruption

A major government project was dubiously awarded to an incompetent and unqualified minister's family, for which a huge government soft loan was granted and disbursed under highly questionable circumstances.

This enabled the project recipient to squander on improper purposes, resulting in a project failure that not only thwarted an important food production scheme, but also imperiled the recovery of such public funds.

Needless to say, in such a scandalous project failure, more than one minister, and more than one ministry's officials, could be incriminated in offences that encompass corruption, collusion, breach of trust and criminal negligence - in the award of the project and subsequent disbursement of funds.

In this entire chain of criminal acts, the purchase of condos is only one link - not the most important one. The bigger question is: Why was the project awarded to Shahrizat's family? Who decided it?

The next question is: Who should be responsible for failing to control the proper disbursement of loans, and for failing to monitor the proper utilisation of the funds?

On the first question, the culprits at the forefront are present and past ministers of agriculture and agro-based industries (Noh Omar, Mustapa Mohamed and Muhyiddin Yassin ), and present and past ministers of finance (Najib Abdul Razak and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), for having been involved in the award of project and subsequent disbursement of funds.

Profitable political handshake?

Apart from these apparent culprits at the protocol level, what about possible behind-the-scene political machinations linked to the project?

Readers will recall that Shahrizat was engaged in a heated contest for Wanita UMNO chief against her predecessor Rafidah Aziz in the last UMNO party election and succeeded in ousting the latter that many observers believed as fulfilling the wishes of the top party leadership.

Under the circumstances, it may not be entirely far-fetched to ask whether there was any link between this RM250 million project and Shahrizat's (left) successful mission to oust Rafidah.

This is an aspect that no conscientious investigator should overlook in the probe into the scandal.

On the second question of disbursement of loans that resulted in the splurging of funds for improper purposes, both the agriculture and finance ministries cannot possibly shirk their responsibility, as it is under their joint scrutiny and approval that every disbursement was made.

For that reason, the two ministers, as well as the officials concerned from the two ministries, have to be probed.

With such abundance of corrupt activities going on at the political leadership level as well as the administrative level, can you imagine our MACC telling us that there is nothing it can do regarding the scandal?

Can you imagine Abu Kassim telling Sin Chew reporters that the problem with the people is that they don't understand the law and cannot distinguish white from black, and that they simply tango with the opposition to condemn MACC?

Abu Kassim further said: "Our biggest problem is how to change people's mindset and how to convince them that MACC is independent.Under the present political atmosphere, corruption is politicised and MACC's alleged lack of independence is used to topple the government".

Treating people like fools

Hearing such comments, one can't help feeling that Abu Kassim has taken the people for ignorant fools.If MACC is independent, can Abu Kassim tell us why there has been no response whatsoever over the mountains of evidence and numerous reports lodged with it over the now world famous timber baron of Sarawak, Taib Mahmud, the chief minister?

A Sarawak NGO called Movement for Change Sarawak (MoCS) submitted a two-inch thick report in March, documenting Taib Mahmud's corruption - no response to date.

Sarawakian Willie Kajan submitted his second report by travelling all the way to Putrajaya in January - no response. Sarawakians James Wong and John Brian submitted their reports in June and August 2010 at Shah Alam and Putrajaya respectively - no response.

Many others, including political party leaders, have also lodged their reports with the MACC, to be met with the same fate.

As for the current NFC scandal, why is Abu Kassim acting like a blind man, oblivious to the swirling controversy that has exposed voluminous evidence of corruption and abuse of power through numerous press conferences and Internet postings over the last two months?

Why is it that Abu Kassim can't see the word "corruption" when it is staring at him from all directions? We understand why Abu Kassim (and the MACC under him) is acting the way he does, but at least spare the people the insult of treating them like fools.

Umno is at point of no return — Ali Kadir

DEC 11 — There is a tendency to soften the facts that face this country. So when a government official says that Malaysia could be bankrupt if profligate spending is not curbed, he is “corrected” immediately.

And when the World Bank paints a dire situation of the brain drain, the government says no such thing. And when Malaysia drops a few notches down the corruption index, the apologists at Pemandu get to work.

Basically, everyone is downplaying the real situation. In similar vein, the Umno MP Nur Jazlan Mohamed talks about his party being at the crossroads. I have to disagree with his conclusion though I agree with many of the points he raised about his anemic party.

He noted that there was little substance or enlightenment during the party’s assembly and instead of discussing real reasons why Malay support for Umno has dwindled, party delegates were more interested in blaming others.

If someone or an organisation is at the crossroads, the main assumption is that the individual or organisation realises that things cannot go on like business as usual. There is introspection, examination of conscience and honest appraisal of how things are and the way forward.

There has been no such ethos in Umno for more than two decades. The party is about the rich getting richer and power grabbing. To borrow a phrase currently in vogue in Russia, it has become a party of scoundrels and thieves.

The crossroads were passed a long time ago. They were passed during the Mahathir era when joining Umno became a passport to enrich oneself and amass government largesse. They were passed during the Abdullah era when the party president crouched and shrank from the challenge of reforming the country and its institutions in the face of backlash from Umno.

Malaysia has gone even deeper into the backwaters during the Najib years where Umno has adopted and embraced the most right wing voices in the country.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Umno is not at the crossroads; it has regressed much further. And that lot we saw at the party assembly don’t look capable of doing much, let alone reforming themselves.

* Ali Kadir reads The Malaysian Insider.

Tun Dr. Mahathir tells Shahrizat to Quit (Belah Lah)

by Shannon Teoh@www.themalaysianinsider.com

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad called today for Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil to quit politics following the controversy over the RM250 million National Feedlot Centre (NFC) project awarded to the her family.

The former Prime Minister, who is still highly influential in UMNO, told a press conference today that the Wanita UMNO chief should leave before being “chased out” by her party. “If we feel it is necessary to quit for the sake of party, we quit. When I wanted to quit, I didn’t ask anyone. I hope others do the same. Don’t wait for people to chase you off.

“Yes, ukur baju di badan sendiri (measure yourself up),” he said when asked if the senator should resign.

The former Lembah Pantai MP had gained the support of both the Youth and her Wanita wings of UMNO last week after denying any wrongdoing in the controversy over the national cattle-farming project.

But other leaders including senior Sabah UMNO MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin have called for the Women, Family and Community development Minister to step down instead of “troubling us.”

PKR has repeatedly attacked the project with various allegations surrounding the “loans” of over RM84 million given by the NFC to companies owned by Shahrizat’s family including RM13.8 million for two luxury condominiums in Bangsar.

The opposition party also pointed out that RM5 million had been spent on the purchase of a Mercedes-Benz, land in Putrajaya and disbursement of RM588,585 in cash to companies belonging to her family as well as over RM455,000 issued to tour agency Impian Global Network Services.

The scandal has led to a police investigation for criminal breach of trust. The Auditor-General’s Report released last month had criticised the NFC, pointing out that it was now “in a mess”.

The report said production in 2010 was only 3,289 head of cattle or 41.1 per cent of the target set. But Agriculture Minister Datuk Seri Noh Omar responded on October 31 that the project was a success as it had met its target of 8,000 cattle by 2010 once 5,742 slaughtered cattle were taken into account.

Umno not a bully? Yeah. Right

COMMENTARY

OCT 18 — Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi must be suffering from amnesia.

That is the most charitable conclusion to draw after he said today that the perception of Umno being a bully in the Barisan Nasional was off the mark.

Speaking at the annual MCA general assembly, the Prime Minister touched on a topic that has been discussed and debated since non-Malay voters deserted the ruling coalition in droves on March 8: the arrogance of Umno politicians and the perception that the MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, PBS and every other component party were punished at the polls for their subservience to the ruling party.

He said: “People say that Umno is a party that likes to bully. I actually have no idea how to bully. There is no such thing as bullying.’’

MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting and Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon must have been bristling at the cavalier manner Abdullah dismissed the issue.

Wasn’t it only a month ago that Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail exhibited supreme arrogance when he showed no remorse for calling Malaysian Chinese immigrants at a rally in the run-up to the Permatang Pauh by-election.

And when Gerakan stood up to him, he behaved just like a schoolyard bully.

He asked for Gerakan to be kicked out of the BN. Not surprising that that the incident did not register with Abdullah as he addressed the MCA for the last time as the chairman of BN and president of Umno.

He and the party’s supreme council members only took disciplinary action against the Bukit Bendera politician after being pushed into a corner. Even then, it was half-hearted attempt to apply balm on the raw feelings of the non-Malays.

Is this PM so out of touch with reality that he does not understand how frustrated BN leaders have become in dealing with arrogant Umno politicians.

Before he stepped down as a minister, Ong had to speak in hushed tones if he wanted allocation for Chinese schools from the Education Ministry. Speak too loud and the minister may be offended.

Koh had to stomach all the excesses of Penang Umno for years and had to be careful not to antagonise them even when they complained about the lack of opportunities in the state for Malays.

The arrogance and bullying did not stop there. And it hurt the MCA and other component parties in many ways.

When the late Datuk Zakaria Deros broke every rule in the book and built his mansion in Klang, and then displayed shocking contempt, it was the MCA and Gerakan which felt the wrath of the voters. Their sin: being in the same political set-up as the arrogant Selangor Umno warlord.

Even surveys conducted before and after the general election confirm one fact: that the majority of non-Malays believe that the BN power-sharing formula discriminates against non-Malay political parties.

A few of the polls also put down the strong showing of Pakatan Rakyat to revulsion at the arrogance of Umno politicians.

A poll by the Merdeka Centre in July showed that 66% of Chinese and 60.1% of Indians agree that the BN does not represent the voice of all communities.

It’s telling that as he spoke to MCA politicians, Abdullah still was prepared to defend a political party that has bullied him since the general election; that refused to back his reform agenda and is now making final preparations for his humiliating send-off.

Malaysians should save their sympathy and goodwill for another leader. This man deserves the bullying treatment he is getting from his party faithful.