Najib- Mahathir's New "Incompetent"?

==================

Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
- P. B. Shelley
==============================

It was in his perfect moment of glory at the delayed 2008 Umno Baru AGM - he was baptized at the pinnacle of his career as the President of Mahathir's Umno Baru.
Despite all the calls for "change, change and more change"- some things will never change. That is the intellectual vacuum within, which begs for Mahathir's patronage. At his closing speech, true to his image, he subtly pleaded (or was is a jab) to a morose Mahathir, that he not be whacked silly (with the mindless audience applauding), when he said that Abdullah promised not to interfere or criticize him publicly.

It couldn't have been better for the man characterized as a "coward" by his mentor - the conflicts were ironed out, and the elections were engineered to perfection by rewarding the relevant warlords. He even choreographed a real coup in forcing Mahathir's presence as a show of "unity" for a "1Malaysia" (whatever that means). We'll never know for sure, but some say that Mukhriz's post was the carrot dangled for the jackass.

If Najib harbours any illusions of Mahathirs support, it is time he gets rid of it - for this old man don't work for nobody except himself. Najib may have just got more than he bargained for.
For all practical purposes, in Mahathir's eyes, Najib is actually a jackass who has underperformed in all his duties since he was handed power on a silver platter.
Considering Mahathir's persona, one cannot be faulted for thinking that Mahathir actually despises a philandering aristocratic spoilt brat. After all, Mahathir the politician, is never known to be gracious to his "allies" and "partners" - forget the adversaries. In fact, in Mahathir's book, they are all one and the same - an affront to his monumental ego (depicted by the twin obelisks in KLCC).

Abdullah's legacy is ready to be erased - just as many monarchs/ pharoahs of old had done to their predecessors. His corridors are probably destined to be as airy as it always has been. The crook-ed bridge issue is being revived once again. Hardly has his sweat dried, and Mahathir has already passed his "unsavoury" comment on CheDet, and is heavily lobbying for the "crooked bridge" by trying to appeal to the "stupidly patriotic" on the non issue of sovreignty.

======================
As the person concerned I will leave it to Malaysians
to judge and to define "Mahathirism".

-Mahathir, www.chedet.cc

=====================

But knowing how these guys are (like his predecessor who had "big ears"), Jibby in his craving & grovelling for approval (as in the Ku Li report by the MSM), praise & worship from all around him, will probably allow his ears to betray his mind.
While that of Mahathir may be certain (crooked bridge or not), one can only speculate the legacy (beyond the Altantuya legend, that is) that Jibby would leave behind - other than being another name on Mahathir's list of unworthy incompetents.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“We are inconsolable at being deceived by our enemies and betrayed by our friends,
yet still we are often content to be thus served by ourselves.”
-François de la Rochefoucauld

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 1983, revisited

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

“Immunity is quite essential. Take the situation where we have a hung Parliament, the Ruler comes in to decide on a Prime Minister from one side of a political party and imagine if the other side of the political party opposes it and takes the Ruler to court”
- Tunku Naquiyuddin

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Well, well, well - first it was TM Pahang who said this.
Now we have Tg. Naquiyuddin asking for "immunity". Is it simply because of this immunity that the Rulers aren't able to "perform their duties" in defending the Federal Constitution?
It escapes me, if the Rulers can be charged in court for carrying out their duties as per the Constitution. Here I was thinking that they are not immune from the law, only in their conduct in their personal capacity. Shouldn't it be a source of pride that the Royalties in their personal capacity, are bound by the laws of Humanity? I cannot say if just possibly, maybe - Tg Naquiyuddin feels otherwise.

It is sad that some people are quick to request that they are given "powers to defend the constitution", when they have hardly raised a whimper when the people's rights have been subverted repeatedly all these years (even in the immunity years).

While I may not exactly be a fan of Mahathir, this was probably one of the best things he's done - impressing upon all that none is above the law. However, that he erred in that he took that privilege for the executive is regrettable. It shouldn't have been to the extent that after 30 days, the King's assent was insignificant to the passing of Laws. There should have been some middle way, where neither the King nor the Executive held absolute power.

It's strange that the most outspoken, publicly respected and erudite of the Royals - HRH Raja Nazrin - who has been at the forefront of this struggle for socio-political reform, isn't too concerned about "power" or "immunity from the law".
I wonder why anyone would want absolute "immunity" from the Law - what have they got to fear? Maybe we should ask Bruce Willis, StanChart or maybe we should ask all those who have been in the limelight for "various reasons" .... that should answer many questions, I suppose.

Anyways, I did some checking up on the matter of the Ammendments ....

"The immunity of the Malay Rulers and the royalty in the performance of their official/state duties has never been taken away. They continue to enjoy that immunity.
.......Although their private immunity was taken away, they continue to enjoy the privileges of being tried by special courts.
So, in my humble view, the question of restoring royal immunity does not arise because they have never lost that protection."
- Kadir Jasin, Royal Immunity is Never Withdrawn

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

"But R.S. Milne and Diane K. Mauzy, in Malaysian Politics Under Mahathir, citing interviews with Umno ministers, suggest that what became known as the 1983 constitutional crisis “was precipitated by reports, received by Mahathir, that the Sultan of Johor stated at a gathering that when he was elected Agong he would unilaterally declare a state of emergency, and with the aid of the army, throw out all the politicians.

“Compounding this were stories that the Sultan was close to certain key military men, and that the army chief, General Tan Sri Mohd Zain Hashim, had criticised Mahathir’s approach and had questioned where the army’s loyalty rested.”

Whatever the case may be, on Aug 1, the Government brought the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1983 before both houses of Parliament, and it was quickly passed.

The bill put forward 22 amendments to the Federal Constitution, including three very significant changes to the position of the Malay Rulers.

First, it removed the need for the Agong to give his Royal Assent to a piece of legislation before it could be gazetted as law. Instead, it stipulated that if the Agong did not give his Assent within 15 days, he was deemed to have done so, and the law could come into effect.

Second, it introduced parallel provisions removing the need for a Sultan to give his Assent to State laws.

Third, it transferred the power to declare an Emergency from the Agong (who was, in any case, supposed to act on the advice of Cabinet in this regard) directly to the Prime Minister, who was not obliged to act on anyone’s advice.

The Prime Minister’s Department had ordered a press blackout on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1983 and, so, while the fact of the bill’s passing was mentioned, its significance was downplayed, and the debate – including an impassioned speech in opposition to it by DAP’s Lim Kit Siang – did not appear in local media.

For the following two months, nothing appeared. But a right royal storm was brewing.

Immediately, the liberal intelligentsia opposed the provision that allowed the Prime Minister to unilaterally declare an Emergency.

On Aug 2, 1983, Aliran issued a statement condemning the Bill, claiming the proposed amendment “opens the way to political abuse. For the Prime Minister is, in the ultimate analysis, a political personality very much involved in the conflicts and compromises of party politics. There is no constitutional mechanism for ensuring that he will not use his emergency powers against his political foes from any quarter.

“It is simply not possible to prevent an ambitious Prime Minister in the future from emerging as a ‘supremo’ after the proclamation of an emergency.”

But, under the strict press blackout, it was not reported.

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the public, the Agong, under pressure from his fellow Rulers, refused to give his Assent to the Bill.

The Rulers maintained that the Bill contravened Article 38(4) of the Constitution, which stated that “No law directly affecting the privileges, position, honours or dignities of the Rulers shall be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.”

The Rulers had also come to understand the full legal implications of removing the need for Royal Assent to legislation. It meant that if Parliament voted to abolish the monarchy, the Rulers would be powerless to stop them.

Tensions continued to build behind the scenes. It was only in October, when Senu Abdul Rahman circulated a letter condemning the amendments, followed by Tunku Abdul Rahman defying the gag order by writing about them in the pages of this newspaper, that Malaysians woke up to the crisis.

There were also disagreements within Umno; as Gordon P. Means notes in Malaysian Politics: the Second Generation, “? many in the ruling coalition were distressed by the contents of the amendments and the confrontational style of Dr Mahathir towards the Malay Rulers.”

Some establishment figures believed the Prime Minister had far-reaching aims. In a 1988 interview transcribed in K. Das & The Tunku Tapes, Tunku Abdul Rahman and the veteran journalist discuss the constitutional crisis.

If one can look past the bitchy, surat layang (poison pen letter) tone of their stories about Dr Mahathir’s children, one can get a snapshot of the groundswell of suspicion.

Tunku: “You see, the Malays have a cause for adat, resam and so on ? tradition. I have a respect for it but he has none. He dislikes it. You see, his whole aim is to upset the constitution and turn this country into a republic. His son was in London talking quite openly amongst the students that his father is going to be the first President of Malaya.”

Das: “I heard his daughter was also talking about it here. Apparently she was caught talking about it at a party not knowing that behind her was one of the Tengkus from Negri Sembilan who overheard it. She said that as soon as the constitution amendment is signed, it is finished, we can become a republic.”

Against this background of suspicion, the 1983 constitutional crisis "
-Huzir Sulaiman, The Mahathir years, StarOnline

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

A major constitutional crisis broke out in 1983 when the Mahathir government sought to amend the constitution to clip the assumed power of the King (Yang di-Pertuan Agung) to confer royal assent to parliamentary bills before they became laws. When the Conference of Rulers objected to the government's bill of 1983 which required compulsory granting of royal assent by a period of 15 days, the Prime Minister went on a country-wide campaign to drum up support for the government's position.

Thus, four years later when the Judiciary came under siege, the Prime Minister had a very compliant set of rulers on his side. This set of events led to the removal of the Lord President, the highest ranking official of the judicial branch, the suspension of five Supreme Court judges and the eventual sacking of two of them. The events that brought this about were a complex intertwining of politics and litigation, which led to the accusation that the judges, including the Lord President had become embroiled in politics (See box).

In truth it was the chagrin and hubris of a Prime Minister who was unable to accept legal decisions working against his party's political and economic interests that led to the bizarre developments. Various interpretations of these events have been written but the main outcome, all will agree, has been the further strengthening of the hand of the executive vis-à-vis the Judiciary to the extent that judicial independence has become a chimera in the Mahathir period (Lee, 1995, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 1990). This together with the emasculation of the role of the traditional Rulers has made executive dominance in government a stable and underlying feature of the state.

-Executive Dominance, http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/hr/js2.html

Strong Government, or Good Governance?

*********************************************

"A weak Government would not be able to deal with the quarrelling between the races, which is the natural tendency of most multiracial societies. Indeed in some multiracial countries violence and fighting are common. Witness the countries around us."
- Dr. Mahathir, CheDet.com

"You definitely wouldn't desire a harmonious state, where the government is controlled by the people who are confident of themselves.
In fact, you would prefer "strong government" that requires repressive laws to control an irrational and emotional people prone to "perceived insecurities", as a result of "fear mongering"."
- Reply to TDM's Criticism on CheDet.com

************************************************

Dear Tun,
Once again you speak of a “strong Government”, which you believe in.
Accordingly, I would like to comment on it, just as I did previously (even if you don't read it).

As you can see, from the comments on MT, there aren't many who would oppose the idea of a strong Govt for the sake of stability. (The comments on CheDet.com however, would of course would shower you with accolades even if you said that the tooth fairy exists)
While everybody in his right mind would love a “strong government” that provides proper leadership with sound judgment, not many will agree with your definition of a strong government.
There is a flaw in your argument, dear sir..... as flawed as the “strong opposition” in your previous entry on this matter.

You claim that “In a single ethnic country it does not matter if the Government is weak because...” does not hold water – would you say that of the many third world/ 'Islamic' despotic regimes or countries like Italy?
Probably not.
How about India?
It is a sub-continent, with in actual fact, many races/ “nationalities”/ religions to begin with.
It embraces pluralism and practices a secular constitution. Governance is complicated, but is a challenge which politicians have risen to.
Its successive governments have been “weak” (as per your definition), but have had sterling economic performance since they opted for it, as opposed to the “strong governments” of semi-fascist, isolationist Indira Gandhi's Congress rule which was impoverished, had a government controlled economy, an enslaved media & civil service, suffered economic malaise, endemic corruption and frequent unreported conflicts.
With this “weak government” with and a liberalized economy though, private enterprise is healthy, the economy is resilient, the country is in relative peace and the living standards have dramatically improved.

From the article you wrote, it appeared to me that what you advocate is a “powerful government” with "strong arm leadership", and not exactly a “strong government”.
A "powerful government" is able to keep the peace with “strong arm tactics” like barbaric laws and subservients instruments of state, while a truly “strong government” is able to convince the electorate of their credibility despite not having a majority.
A strong government is one that would dare to transcend partisan politics in order to safeguard the rule of law - whereas, a government that that demands power to rule, would seek to rule by intimidation.
While they can be both (powerful & strong or vice versa), they are rarely so, dear Tun.
You cannot always equate the two.
Likewise a strong leadership does not necessarily translate into good governance.

If you were to look at our politics (your politics, actually), the definition of a strong govt is "strong arm Govt" as a result of the state sanctioned corruption that's required, in order to perpetuate the agenda of greed. It means unquestioning obedience - right or wrong.
The 58% majority would be considered a "landslide", in a healthy democracy with strong institutions of state that provide adequate checks & balances. This however, is not be in a state run under the ideology of "Ketuanan Melayu" using NEP as a pretext for robbing the nation's wealth, where the subversion of the rule of law is a prerequisite for being a strong Govt (as under your rule). It is for this very reason that “powerful governments" have high stakes in the economy/ “private enterprise”.

This government (you propose and we had) has been inextricably linked to, and controls all sectors of the economy and institutions. As such, it is vulnerable when the economy suffers due to external influences. The economy/people would also suffer when the government has poor leadership, when the pie shrinks or there is a prospect of change in government. This is far from what one might call a “strong government” - the evidence can be seen from the economy of the Suharto regime or even Zimbabwe, for that matter.
Such a govt can never withstand the ideological onslaught of any right thinking people - and hence would resort to strong arm tactics to bully them into submission (read RPK/Hindraf/ISA). The other option would be to warn the people not to speak of "sensitive issues" and stifle the media.

It is what we have seen successive governments under BN do to opposition controlled states, civil rights leaders, academics or political dissenters. In the Umno leadership, due to lack of ideas & principles, it is imperative that they propagate a racist siege mentality, so as to shore up 'credibility' that rides on fascistic ideas of a "strong government".

That, dear Tun, is your idea of a strong govt - a govt that has the ability to hold the state at ransom - subvert the economy, the institutions of state, the constitution, disregard human rights and destroy the rule of law. A govt that dictates to an economically enslaved citizenry under the guise of democracy. The reason for this is simple - the Umno/ BN regime is philosophically/ideologically bankrupt, and would resort to anything (from religion to subversion) to maintain its grip on power and its "right to rule".
Umno doesn't see the need to be accountable or articulate in the actions or ideas. It therefore is unable to communicate coherently enough to convince its "opponents" of its ideas of nationhood. The objective & incentive here is only one thing - the freedom to squander the wealth of the nation (legally) created by the people, and not the well-being of a nation.

What you speak of Tun isn't exactly democracy - you speak of a "benevolent dictatorship" that dictates terms to the subservient people it professes to serve.
What you don't seem to advocate is a govt that is strong on principles of justice and rule of law. Nor do you advocate strong institutions of state that provide alternatives to the politicians who rape the land.
Even pirates can set up strong governments, so as to impose their will upon others with scant regard for intellect, truth and justice. For this, all you need are unreasoning automatons who'd would shudder at the thought of questioning the decision of the “leadership”.
That I presume, might characterise what you advocate in a “strong government”.

A strong government does not stifle voices of democracy.
True strength, dear Tun, comes from intellectual prowess and excellence- not the barrel of a gun. A strong government is one that's secure in its national ideology/ agenda, and is able to tolerate dissent, debate ideas and open to change and progress. It wouldn't propagate a siege mindset nor resort to threats - open or subtle.
It would not resort to punishing voters who exercise their democratic rights, does not “steal” elections, or punish “opposition” ruled states. It doesn't resort to gerrymandering either. It would graciously relinquish power should it lose in elections and is confident that the nation as a whole wouldn't suffer.

A strong and ethical government dissociates itself from excessive involvement in business interests, lest it breeds corruption and greed. It is paramount that it has a pool of intellectuals who can guide a state through challenges of the future, as opposed to the current crop of Umno leadership. While you admit that “a powerful Government, if it is incompetent and badly led would not manage to govern a multiracial country well”, you deny the fact that it is the bigotry, religious chauvinism and racism which the Umno/ BN regime practices, is what creates the need for a “strong government” you seek. Nothing else.

Dear Tun,
Your line of reasoning is deeply flawed, dear Sir.
What we need isn't a "strong government", but "Good Governance" - and it isn't about race or religion.
It's about an electorate having options to governments.
It's about good education in humanities. It's about building trust, and not suspicion, fear of dispossession or a siege mentality among an insecure electorate.

It's about confidence building, dear Sir - not fear mongering, or stifling dissent.

Death of Democracy : Umno(Baru) Transition Recycled ....

"To all appearances, we are beginning to lose grip of the rule of law.
The use of the Internal Security Act and of Sedition Laws to target
particular individuals further erodes the credibility of the
government.
Our actions exacerbate rather than calm the fear that
stokes civil and racial strife."
-Statement from KuLi, of Umno (23.09.08)

Be careful the environment you choose for it will shape you;
be careful the friends you choose for you will become like them.
-W. Clement Stone

"Abdullah pledged to complete his promised reforms
before leaving office next March......."
- TheMalaysianInsider

******************************

At a time when the world is reeling from the financial crisis that's hitting the world markets, local warlords are fighting over the shrunken political/financial pie that they cannot seem to live without.
Politics seems to be all that our leadership seems to care about.

It is a very unsettling development that we see today- when one mild mannered and incompetent CEO, decides to effectively leave the management of state to another although retaining the post.
It is left to the workings of one who has no track record of leadership to his name (beyond the aristocratic bloodline, some "explosive issues" and the reported "Chineseblood-lust" when he declared that "May 13 has begun" ).
An unblushing full page spread of him in one of the MSM dailies, posing with piles of books so as to "look intellectual", comes to mind.
(Reminds me of the story of a politician who went to a bookstore, to buy "25 feet of books" to fill his bookshelf, with which he wanted to pose, for a photograph!).
The choreographed video of him (in his welcome address) on his blog, with his fake accent and amateurish gestures, is at best, laughable.
This is the glorious future of Umno/Malaysian leadership, (which as Anwar expects,) will wield the tongkat/baton with greater ferocity- with the help of a fascist (cum racist) 'godfather'. The "godfather" though, today makes a pretense of distancing himself from this "economist", by calling him names like 'coward' - which incidentally could very well be true.

The baton/tongkat will, in true-blue Umno "tradition", be passed on to this new "emperor designate". The new emperor will meanwhile pass the word through the "grapevine" (or the "little bird"), on his desired accomplice for the deputy,
- and the voices of Umno democracy ends there.
Just as everything else in the Malaysian "system", Umno Democracy is about the little man conforming to the desires of warlord politicians/ leaders, and not vice versa.
Anything else on show, will only be for media hype.

This new "naked emperor" will definitely need the tongkat (maybe a "fig-leaf" too) which will be wielded on behalf of the "old guard". Without the ability to bully the parliament with the two-thirds majority (and the ever present Mongolian ghost), he'll need all the tongkats available to prop himself up - and they'll have to come even from the scum of the earth.
In other words, he'll simply be the pretender on the throne - should he really manage to get there - and the same old game of mega-projects and piracy will go on (unless checked by a change in Govt).
Bakri Musa's "The Limp Replacing the Lame" could very well prove to be prophetic ....

As usual, the anointed successor will disregard the democratic process and assume the mantle of leadership with absolute/dictatorial powers, in an organisation that's supposed to practice and protect democracy.
Accordingly, he'll be showered with nauseating accolades upon accolades from all the underlings hoping for handouts and fresh opportunities to rise through the hierarchy of corruption and decadence, which has become the trademark of a racist & fascist organisation.
Without a doubt, they (the MSM) will be peddle flattery for the simpletons to consume- that he is the best, the wisest, the most fit to rule, the best leader, the most beautiful lips, forehead, chin, and not to mention "family heirlooms" which they'd scramble to kiss and worship.
Anything less would be considered "biadap" or "uncultured". To these "Pak Turuts" who make up the vast majority of the dominant political party, it's called in Umno-speak, "Malay Democracy, Leadership and Culture".
Anything else is said to be - "isn't our culture".

"He's a natural successor, etc, etc ....", said a 'political analyst' from UUM.
Perhaps, rightfully so - as he has nothing to his record, to speak for his leadership skills. He has right from the start rode on political patronage and his family name. In fact, some reports even suggest that he had once resorted to "stealing" an election victory with "postal votes" - in his own "stronghold"!
Just as the outgoing CEO was condemned for his cluelessness, the "natural successor" was apparently equally clueless (according to a "little bird") during his days, about affairs in his education ministry years. This pink-lipped wannabe however got away thus far, due to the "godfathers" who gave him protection with their tongkats, wielded as batons to club competition & dissenters to death (at least politically, if not literally).
He will, more likely that than the current "leadership", hobble along with the "tongkat" along paths thrust upon him, by the real masters at work behind the scenes.

The much publicised pledges for reforms prior to the passing of the current regime is just that - pledges, and nothing more. With real reforms, taking into account the intellectual bankruptcy of the political elite, theBN/Umno political machinery will soon cease to exist.
It is imperative that no reforms take place, if Umno is to survive.
It has to perpetuate the current system, or die!
Umno as we know it, cannot co-exist with the independent institutions of state - namely the Judiciary, Security Forces, Civil Service, Ruler's Conference. Numerous toothless commissions will probably be created as window dressing, which we have become so accustomed to.

Umno is incapable of reform - the 10 points P.Gunasegaran suggests in The Star today can only materialize in dreams, and thus, it would be more constructive for Guna to pick his nose (and The Star to stop charging readers for the ads), than advise Umno.
KuLi is there - attempting to lend some credibility to the Umno "pseudo-democracy". Being a political "has-been" and a lonely has been voice in the Umno wilderness, he today has the luxury of being realistic with his posturing, despite all his previous racist rhetoric.
With a mere 5 months to go, Anwar's scepticism on these Dollah pledges, is shared by all Malaysians of sound mind.

Those at the forefront of the campaign in the last elections had become the victims of the Umno aristocratic retribution.
Raja Petra and the Hindraf-5 have become the fall guys thus far.
Infantile attempts at making scapegoats of Teresa Kok and Ms. Tan for their own failures, (with bumbling arguments of "required protection", anti/unIslamic & what not)- and had backfired. Racial conflicts did not erupt despite concerted efforts of some parties.
To divert attention and sabotage the opposition, Anwar has hurdles piled upon him in the form of trumped-up charges. He could very well expect more "saifuls", danger to society/national security and conspiracy charges in the near future. There are others who could possibly "be on the watch-list" in an anticipated crackdown on civil liberties (a la "Ops Lalang II"), in the near future, under the 'new leadership".

As to who eventually runs the show amidst all the "wayang", it remains to be seen - as of now, 'the usual suspects' appear to be in competition, and one has already wished the other "good luck" ....
Rumour has it that one party wields a Mongolian dossier, while the other, is the master of sabotage & political subversion and has "pop appeal". Age/ time however doesn't isn't in favour of the old man - he may at best last another year, as the multiple bypass grafts to his heart have long passed their expiry dates. That he has survived this long, is in itself, one for the medical journals ....

An "Anwarista" I'm not - not by a long shot. However, it appears more than ever, that he is at present the only hope for any salvation from the "droppings" left behind by Mahathir.

This is what the crystal ball says for Malaysia- No Reforms.
Only the Mahathirist Umno (Baru) recycled.
And more than a "tongkat", Najib probably needs a "fig-leaf" ......

=========================================

Related:

• Dilema Tongkat Melayu - by YB Nik Nazmi

• United Malays National Organisation

• Ketuanan Melayu

**************************

Ghosts in our Minds ....

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

"f you do not agree with government policies, don't be a government employee. Resign."
- A. S. Cheek

"As supreme council members,
they should uphold the ethics...."

- MMT

"Ex-deputy president of SAPP and current Deputy Chief Minister of Sabah Raymond Tan, claimed on Saturday that he had been instrumental in preventing the arrest of party president Yong Teck Lee in June in relation to allegations of corruption."
- MSM reports.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

We now have the right people to advise Malaysians on ethics
- one is AS Cheek and the other, MMT.
We then have a currently retained Deputy CM - Raymond Tan - confessing to the media of what could have been regarded as abuse of power or obstruction of justice/investigation. (He may have just signed his political death warrant, though).
With people like these to lead us, who needs educationists, ulamaks/priests/ philosophers or thinkers?

What we see is a bunch of incompetent and corrupt "leaders" who seek to grab at anything to protect their interests. Ethics is the furthest from their mind despite the diarrhoea of rhetoric.

But then again how different are we the rakyat from them?
Just take a look at the number of signitories to the petition appealing for the release of barbaric ISA - HERE.
A paltry 21,000 ......
That's coming from the MILLIONS of hits (per day, mind you ...) at Malaysia Today and Peoples Parliament.

We know of the many "reasons" Malaysians give for not signing - all these despite sucking up to Malaysia Today and reading it "for information only" - like it is a freakshow. Almost all the people I know are quite unanimous in their approval of RPKs gung ho style, bravery and expose.

Those who may have signed, do not presume to be "holier than thou" here - no, not for a minute. They simply express their disgust at the disease mentioned below, and have taken the first step to dispel it. After all, the standards and willingness to commit oneself is quite relative to the "circumstances" - emotions, family, job, finances, contracts, politics, faith, the "fear factor", etc etc etc.
To "us" guys who refuse to sign, remember these "reasons" the day your children are deprived of the "material luxuries" you now enjoy despite being deprived of the dignity that you silently crave for.
It won't be too long if we choose to infect/reinfect others with this same diseases we carry - Fear, Apathy, Selfishness.

However, I do not believe that they are entirely to blame for this phenomenon - they have been brought up to believe in these things by the likes of the people mentioned above. We have been brought up to live in fear of the politicians' retribution - more so under the doctrine/creed of "Mahathirism", wherein we willingly sell our souls, humanity and rights for material gains to varying degrees (as I've said before- me too, to a certain extent).

Even more intimidating is the inbridled power of the ISA, which can be used "as deemed necessary" by "leaders" - even if it is simply for the sake of silencing the truth, and spreading the idea of fear. In fact, so pervasive is its influence, that many actually believe in the necessity of ISA to "keep the peace" in a "multi-racial" society, which proudly portrays the benefits of racism and apartheid, described/spun in the media as "racialism" and the "NEP".

It is what many a businessman wants - just make the money, have a PR status in Australia/ US/ UK and what not. That's why TDM implied that those of chinese descent "don't mind 'racialism'", as long as the economy/ their bread & butter isn't disturbed. Actually, it isn't a "chinese" sentiment - it is a Malaysian sentiment that cuts across all ethnic communities, although it is more pronounced among certain sectors. There is a lack of will/ hope among Malaysians to achieve true nationhood.

In other words, we are supposed to just make money and 'mind our own business', don't speak of anything that might be deemed "unethical" or "ungrateful to the authorities" - or your dreams to migrate may be shot. What we breed is nothing but resentment towards a system that systematically convinces us that we deserve to be deprived of rights. We shouldn't discuss or speak of what we may perceive as "injustice", as they are "sensitive" -to do so would render you an enemy of the state, and a "trouble maker".
This is especially important if we are in the civil service which is to day subservient to the government, and not the supposedly the apolitical "in His Majesty's Service" - hence Mr. A.S. Cheek's call to resign, if you're deemed not agreeable with government policies through an impartial discussion/debate.

In other words, what we who support the idea of 'detention without trial' do, is to permit and encourage the propagation of ignorance, fear and distrust among the various communities, as a means of working with the system- thus leading to a fractured state which is far from the desired "nationhood" that is preached.

If this is what Malaysians want, so be it ......

Here's a message by a reader of Malaysia Today, which would describe things very well:-
written by batsman, September 23, 2008 10:07:33
Sorry to be wet blanket, but it is a fact of life that most big social movements or even revolutions consume their own leaders. Even Harun Idris was consumed by May 13. I believe RPK knows this very well. He fights because he wants to not 100% because of us. He fights behind bars as well as when he is free.
Of course, it is much better if he is free. But he is not. And he is not free to say what he thinks either, so commentators - no need to be "holier than thou".
RPK himself is clearly for the ISA to be abolished. He said as much in his article on the detained Hindraf leaders. Often followers tweak the beliefs of their leaders. Even the Prophet himself suffered this fate with countless "followers and faithful" tweaking his teachings. Generations of "tweaking" have created the mess we now have. The latest "tweaking" being Hadhari.
So ... no need to be "holier than thou". We love RPK. We want him out, but there is no need to be "holier than thou". I can't speak for RPK, but I find such "holier than thou" attitude quite nauseating.

written by batsman, September 23, 2008 11:19:13
Cruzeiro - who is the coward? The guy who refuses to sign or the guy who seeks to hide among millions of signatures and dumps shit on those who do not sign because there are too few signatures and he cannot hide so well?
RPK has his causes and he fights these causes. Those who dump shit on people who did not sign the petition have only one cause - to get people to sign the petition. For this they distort the values and teachings of the teacher and place themselves on a high pedastal. For this one single fight in the armoury of fights that we should have, these people are willing to forego good taste and good principles. Too big egos, I say.

To those who wish to sign - do so please. But do not dump shit on those who do not and adopt "holier than thou" attitudes.
.....................................

To 'batsman' and his ilk, I have only one thing to say - nobody dumped it on them.
It's just that they don't see that they are in it.

Addendum:

Since "batsman" was curious to know what people think of those who did not sign the petition are (and I didn't have the heart to say it), here's what the govt MSM -
the NST Editorial calls them today -
"opportunistic malcontents and anonymous cowards who constitute much of his constituency turn whistling elsewhere for their entertainment." - HERE.

"Batsman" and all you cheering/saddened guys who have a million reasons not to sign,
I hope you read this, and now know how you're regarded by the Govt
and know thyselves better before coming up with a "defense".....

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

The ISA in Malaysia - Pt. I

UPDATES from the blogs/newsportals:-

Sapp pulls out of UMNO-led Barisan Nasional

Sapp pulls out of BN; Blogger Kickdefella detained

Najib handed the "cookie jar". Pak lah is playing defence.
(no offence intended).
Beh Li Yi | Sep 17, 08 2:16pm BREAKING NEWS! updated 3pm

The prime minister says his deputy Najib Abdul Razak will take over as finance minister with immediate effect.

======================================

*(Speculative) ==>HORRORS!! - Mr "wayar putuih" (aka Nazri) for Law - again????
==> KJ to challenge Madey Jr. & Toyol in "Chief Young Turd" contest?

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

**The Following is a Paper by Mr. Wong Hon Wai, entitled
The role of fundamental liberties in the evolution of Malaysia as a democratic society.
Since it may be too long to be read and understood, I have split it up into 3 parts.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Seed of Democracy

After World War II, the British planted the seed of democracy in Malaya. In 1955, Malayans were empowered to elect their representatives to the Federal Legislative Council. Two years later, Malayans were granted the right for self-determination and thus the Federation of Malaya became an independent sovereign country. Malaysia as a political entity came into being on 16^th September 1963 by federating the Federation of Malaya with Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. However, in 1965, Singapore separated from Malaysia.

Throughout the history of Malaysia, there is a continuity of parliamentary democracy with regular election being held except during the aftermath of 1969 racial riots, which democracy was pronounced dead and parliament was suspended from 15 May 1969 until 20 Feb 1971. [1]

It is beyond dispute that democratic system is the preferred system for Malaysians as it provides the only long-term basis for managing competing racial, religious and cultural interests in a way that minimizes the risk of violent internal conflict within a plural society.

In 1991, the Prime Minister YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad in a working paper presented to the Malaysian Business council, unveiled the national aspiration plan called Vision 2020[2]. Vision 2020 is about the aim that Malaysia becomes a fully developed country by the year 2020. There are 9 challenges documented in the working paper. The third challenge is fostering and developing a mature democratic society. In order to achieve these common goals, Malaysia has to benchmark its democratic system with the others fully developed countries.

Democracy is more than the ritual casting of a ballot at multi-party elections. True democracy involves participation by the people at all levels so that they have a voice in the discussions and decisions by which they are governed. But democracy must not only govern the political process, it should pervade all sphere of society, including economic and social life.

As Malaysia develops and its citizens becomes better educated and more sophisticated, the demand for civil and political rights has become louder. For increasingly larger segments of Malaysian society, a full stomach is no longer enough. The barometer for a mature democratic society is measured by the fundamental liberty enjoys by its peoples.

Fundamental Liberties Guaranteed by the Written Constitution

There are nine rights regarded as fundamental in the Malaysian Constitution (Federal Constitution) namely liberty of the person (Article 5); freedom from slavery and forced labour (Article 6); protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials (Article 7); equality (Article 8); prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement (Article 9); freedom of speech, assembly and association (Article 10); freedom of religion (Article 11); rights in respect of education (Article 12) and rights to property (Article 13).

According to Dr Shad S Faruqi[3], there are 4 categories of restriction on fundamental liberties in the Federal Constitution namely:

1. Restrictions may be imposed by ordinary legislation enacted under the authority of the constitutional provision conferring the right
2. Fundamental rights may be curtailed by legislation against subversion.
3. Legislation to combat an emergency may suspend all fundamental rights except freedom of religion
4. Constitutional amendments may be enacted to curtail or abolish a right guaranteed by the basic law

Within the above context, the following analysis is to identify the restrictions and look into proposal to overcome them.

1. Restrictions by ordinary legislation enacted under the authority of the constitutional provision conferring the right

An examination of the constitutional provisions would disclose that there are two types of rights namely absolute rights and qualified rights. Absolute rights are those without restriction or qualification. Qualified rights refer to the provisions concerned permit laws to curtail the exercise of such rights under certain conditions. Take for instance, freedom from slavery is an absolute rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. In the other hand, freedom of speech is a qualified right.

Although Article 10(1)(a) grants to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, Parliament may under Article 10(2) by law restrict this right under 9 grounds namely security of the Federation, friendly relations with other countries, public order, morality, privileges of Parliament, privileges of Legislative Assembly, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to any offence.

As compare to the First Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America (USA), Article 10(1)(a) of Federal Constitution is too restrictive. The First Amendment stipulated that among other things USA Congress should make no law prohibiting the free exercise or abridging the freedom of speech.[4] As what Harding concluded Article 10 is remarkable for what it takes away rather than for what it gives. [5]

The idea that restrictions are sometimes necessary on political rights is common place in others jurisdiction. However, Article 10 fails to place any real restrictions on the restrictions. They are widely drafted that in practice there are likely to be very few possible restrictions which could not be said to come within the kinds of restriction permitted by Article 10, especially as there is nothing in Article 10 to suggest that the courts have any right to review the necessity of legislation restricting one of these rights.

In Madhavan Nair v PP [1975] 2 MLJ 264: The Malaysian High Court had declared that the use of subjective words in article 10(2) like “necessary or expedient” rendered it not within the competency of the courts to question the necessity or expediency of the legislative provision.

In India, there is a judicial requirement that derogating pieces of legislation must be “reasonable restriction” (Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution). Indian Constitution requires that the restrictions, even if within the limits prescribed, must be reasonable and the court would be under a duty to decide on its reasonableness.

According to Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights, the Parliament of member states are allow to restrict political rights only so far as is compatible with the requirements of a democratic society.

With regard to Malaysia, when infringement of the right is alleged, the scope of the court’s inquiry is limited to the question whether the impugned law comes within the orbit of the permitted restriction. There would be no substantive challenge to these laws even if they were overly harsh or unreasonable.[6] Prima facie, this would seem to indicate that so long as parliament fulfilled all the procedural requirements in the passage of laws restricting free speech

The position in India and European Community is preferred, as it has allowed the judiciary to scrutinise the enabling provision of the constitution on the grounds of reasonableness and compatibility of a democratic society respectively.

2. Fundamental rights curtailed by legislation against subversion.

Powers against subversion under Article 149 Federal Constitution has curtailed the practical operation of fundamental rights. This provision also introduced the broad notions of national security into Malaysia. Legislations enacted under Article 149 may be inconsistent with liberty of the person (Article 5); freedom of movement (Article 9); freedom of speech, assembly and association (Article 10) and rights to property (Article 13) and yet remain constitutionally valid.

Article 149 of the 1957 Constitution (Merdeka Constitution) has a clause that such laws would automatically lapsed upon the expiration of one year from the date on which they came into operation. However the sunset provision was removed in the Constitution Amendment Act 1960 and the position now is such laws would continue to exist indefinitely, unless both Houses of Parliament passed resolutions annulling them.

One of the examples of such legislation is the Internal Security Act 1960. (ISA). ISA permits the Executive to detain suspects without the filing of formal charges. During the 1960s, ISA was intended to deal with the threat of communist. However, in the case of Theresa Lim Chin Chin v Inspector-General of Police [1988] 1 MLJ 293: The court ruled that ISA is valid and from the wording of the provision of the Act there is nothing to show that it is restricted to communist activities. It was held that Art 149 was not confined to the communist insurgency.

Since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre Twin Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001, United State of America (USA) has introduced the Patriot Act 2001. [7] This Act empowered the Attorney General to sign detention order to detain without trial. As both ISA and Patriot Act is the law on preventive detention, it will be interesting to make a comparison.

The following table summarised the difference between these two legislations.

Name	Malaysia Internal Security Act 1960	USA Patriot Act 2001
Purpose	To provide for the internal security of Malaysia, preventive detention, the prevention of subversion, the suppression of organised violence against persons and property in specified areas of Malaysia, and for matters incidental thereto.	To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes
Applicability	Applicable to all persons. (Both citizens and non-citizens)	Applicable to alien (Non-US citizens only).
Judicial Review	Judicial review is restricted. Section 8B and 8C severely limit the court’s ability to inquire into the legality of a detention except on questions of compliance with procedures.	Judicial review in terms of habeas corpus proceedings is provided by the Act.
Detention period	Section 73 allows the police to detain for 60 days any person who may act "in a manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia." The Home Minister may authorize indefinite detention renewable every two years ad infinitum.	The Act allows 7 days detention after which he AG should initiate deportation proceedings, press charges or otherwise release the detainee. There is provision provided for the person to be detained for up to six months. The Court ruled that Attorney General is authorized to detain aliens as long as removal is reasonably foreseeable. [8]
Restricted conditions after released	Those released before the end of their detention period are subject to "imposed restricted conditions" for the remainder of their detention periods. These conditions limited their rights to freedom of speech, association, and travel outside the country	Either deportation or let free. No restricted conditions after released.
Report to Parliament	No equivalent provisions.	Every 6 months, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with respect to the reporting period, the details of the detainees and the grounds for the detention.
Review	The Advisory Board shall review the detention every 2 years.	The Attorney General shall review the detention every 6 months
Sunset Provision	No equivalent provisions	The Act shall cease to have effect on Dec 31, 2005.

Table 1: Comparison analysis of Malaysia ISA and USA Patriot Act

The ISA in Malaysia - Pt. II

3. Legislation to combat an emergency may suspend all fundamental rights except freedom of religion

Article 150 of the Federal Constitution gives extraordinary powers to the Executive to act when a State of Emergency is declared. Any Act enacted under Article 150 need not comply with all fundamental liberties except related to religion (Article 150(6)(a)) and continues in force indefinitely until parliament otherwise determines, whether or not the circumstances giving rise to the emergency have terminated.

In the 1957 Merdeka Constitution, a proclamation of emergency and laws passed during such an Emergency shall cease to be in force at the expiration of two months from the date of proclamation. They would only continue to have force if they have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the expiry of the specified period. Such sunset provision was meant to prevent abuses by the Executive.

However, the Constitution Amendment Act 1960 removed this highly desirable protective mechanism by providing that neither the Proclamation of Emergency nor the laws passed automatically lapse after two months. Instead, they remain in force indefinitely, until both Houses of Parliament pass annulling resolutions [9]

As the consequences of this 1960 amendment, there are 4 proclamations of Emergency that are still valid and in force today as none of them had been revoked or annulled [10].

The 4 proclamation of Emergency are

1. Indonesian Confrontation (1964)
2. Political crisis in Sarawak only (1966)
3. Racial riot (1969)
   
4. Political crisis in Kelantan only (1977)

In the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1981, a new Clause (8) was inserted to Article 150, which provides that the Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain any application to challenge any State of Emergency proclaimed by His majesty and any laws made there under – thus all questions concerning emergency powers would be left to the absolute discretion of the Executive.

This 1981 amendment effectively places the action to invoke the emergency powers beyond judicial review.

The combine effects of 1960 and 1981 amendments substantially and extensively infringed upon fundamental concepts underlying the 1957 Merdeka Constitution. These amendments all worked to the detriment of the individual and to the benefit of the Executive.

Unrestrained invocation of emergency powers poses a threat to the rule of law and democracy in Malaysia. Lim Kit Siang, the then Parliament Opposition Leader, proposed a review of the exercise of the emergency powers under Article 150 and the formulation against abuses of emergency powers. [11] His proposals are as following:

• The effects of states of emergency on the rights of citizens and the powers of the various branches of government should be clearly spelt out.

• The constitution should enumerate and define the situations, which justify departure from the normal order. There should be separate provisions to distinguish between war with foreign enemies and internal disturbances.

• The duration of states of emergency should be specified. Review of the need for emergency occurs at regular intervals.

• The procedure for declaring a state of emergency must be constitutionally defined, giving primary responsibility to legislature.

It is submitted the Federal Constitution, providing that emergency legislation can be inconsistent with any provision of the constitution except those concerning religion, citizenship and language is wholly incompatible with the contemporary international standard. A detail review should be carried out to protect the fundamental liberties of the citizens during emergency period.

4. Constitutional amendments may be enacted to curtail or abolish a right guaranteed by the basic law

The constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties are also not entrenched in that they are protected from the amending powers of Parliament. It is technically possible under Article 159 of Federal Constitution for fundamental liberty provisions to be altered, restricted or even done away with by two-third-majority vote in a constitutional amendment.

However, the Indian Supreme Court thought otherwise. In the Indian case of Kesavanand Bharai v The State of Kerala A.I.R. 1973 SC 1461: Supreme Court of India had to consider the scope and extent of the power to amend the Indian Constitution whether certain provisions can be corroded by the Parliament thru the process of constitutional amendment. The court ruled that the doctrine of basic structure is effective in the Indian Constitution. The basic structure of Indian Constitution said to consist of the following features.

· Supremacy of the constitution
· Republican and democratic forms of Government
· Secular nature of the constitution
· Separation of power between legislative, executive, judiciary · Federal character of the constitution

.Every provision of the Indian constitution can be amended provided the basic foundation and structure of the constitution remains the same

In favour of this doctrine, it can be said that it provides an insurance against legislative over exuberance. It safeguards the basic structure and value of the constitution against the power of transient political majorities.

In Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, Federal Court declined to follow the Kesavanand doctrine and held that fundamental rights enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution were not inviolate and could be amended by Parliament.

The courts’ reluctance to follow Indian case on civil liberties and constitutional law, which have resulted in lesser rights being enjoyed by a Malaysian citizens than Indian citizens.

Tommy Thomas [12] advocated for the concept of “Basic Structure” to be applied in Malaysia. He argued that the acceptance is the only way for the courts to live up to its constitutional duties in preserving and protecting the Constitution in the face of the numerous constitutional amendments by parliament and the frequent use of Emergency Powers by the Executive.

It may be useful to recall what Justice Jackson said in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette 319 US 624: “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the Courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Judicial interpretation on the Fundamental Liberties

As the Federal Constitution with a chapter on fundamental liberties, the judiciary has been given the vital role of reconciling the conflicting demands between the fundamental liberties of the citizens and responsibilities of the State. Violation of the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Federal Constitution can be remedied in the Courts through writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari and others.

Tun Suffian in Re Datuk James Wong Kim Min [1976] 1 LNS 124 observed that “The laws affect the liberty of the subject and in the case of doubt or ambiguity, they should be interpreted against the authority and in favour of the citizen”.

Raja Azlan Shah declared in Pengarah Tanah & Galian, WP v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd [1978] 1 LNS 143: “Unfettered discretion is a contradiction in terms… Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship. The Courts are the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression. In these days when government departments and public authorities have such great powers and influence, this is a most important safeguard for the citizen; so that the courts can see that these great poers and influence are exercised in accordance with law.”

The above statements reflect the bright side of liberal constitutional interpretation in favour of the peoples. However, the Courts tend to have different approach on interpreting the constitutional provisions. This can be seen from the survey of cases involving interpretation on the meaning of “life” and habeas corpus proceedings.

The Meaning of “Life”

The Court of Appeal in Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 2 CLJ 771, Gopal Sri Ram JCA said: “The expression “life” appearing in Article 5(1) does not refer to mere existence. It incorporates all those facets that are an integral part of life itself and those matters that go to form the quality of life. Of these are the rights to seek and be engaged in lawful and gainful employment and to receive those benefits that our society has to offer to its members. It includes the right to live in a reasonably healthy and pollution free environment. The judgement of the right to life incorporates right to livelihood. “

However, in Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan [2002] 4 CLJ 105, the Federal Court disagreed with the interpretation of Tan Tek Seng and viewed that the matters which form the quality of life has been enshrined in the Part II of Federal Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Liberties.

In short, Court of Appeal in Tan Tek Seng has expanded the meaning of “life” in Article 5(1). However, Federal Court in Sugumar reversed the liberal trend set by Tan Tek Seng and have used a restrictive approach in interpreting the provision. In Sugumar case, the judgement is in favour to the State but it is the opposite for Tan Tek Seng.

Habeas Corpus Proceedings

In the case of Abdul Ghani Haroon v Ketua Polis Negara & Another [2001] 3 CLJ 606, Justice Dato Hishamuddin Yunus granted the habeas corpus application. The court used the inherent powers – s25(2) of the Courts of the Judicature Act 1964 read with Para 1 of the Schedule of the same act – to make a further order that the police be restrained from rearresting the applicants at least for a period of 24 hours. Dato Hishamuddin said: “Due to heavy presence of police personnel, should rearrest immediately occur, that would have been a grave injustice. Such an action on the part of the police would make a mockery not only of my judgement, which I had delivered, but also of the whole habeas corpus proceeding and of the constitutional guarantees under art 5 of the Constitution.“

This judgement reflects the judicial creativity in interpreting the provisions of the legislation. This is the landmark judgement in which first time a further order of 24 hours no-rearrest assurance was made. Prior to this judgement, even one succeeded in the habeas corpus application may not taste the fruit of the judgement long enough. For instance, a politician cum lawyer Karpal Singh was rearrested at a roadblock while he was on his way home to Penang with his family nine hours after obtaining the writ of habeas corpus from the High Court of Ipoh in 1988.[13]

Expansion of the Constitution’s scope

The Malaysian court is more notable for its conservatism than activism. Malaysian judges should in future play a more activist role in carrying out their constitutional functions. They should adopt a purposive, liberal and broad view of constitutional rights and concepts.

It is submitted that the Court should expand, not limit the Constitution’s scope. The provisions on fundamental liberties must be interpreted in such a way that is promotes democracy and fairness.

International law on Human Rights

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”. Today, the UDHR has been supplemented by a vast array of international standards. Of the 25 major international human rights instruments, Malaysia has ratified only five namely [14] :

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Convention on the Nationality o married Women
• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of GenocideSupplementary
  
• Convention on the Abolishment of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices similar to Slavery

Malaysia has yet to ratified two important instruments namely

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and cultural rights (ICESCR)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Both ICESCR and ICCPR have come into effect in the year of 1976. Calls for ratification has been made by numerous quarters including the Parliament opposition leader who moved a Parliament motion in 1976[15] and by Malaysia Human Rights Commission in its year 2000 Annual Report. [16]

As of 1 April 1999, there are 141 countries out of 195 countries in the United Nations ratified ICESCR, 144 for ICCPR [17].

It is submitted the Government of Malaysia should take initiative to ratify the ICESCR and ICCPR and ensure the domestic law compliance with the conventions. In the age of globalisation, the international law on human rights is becoming increasingly relevant. Ratifying these two covenants will promote human rights and avoid the recurring violation of fundamental liberties in Malayisa. This will enhance Malaysia international reputation and in line with the national aspiration Vision 2020 to achieve a mature democratic society.