Posted on by Kit

Pak Lah’s host of great breaches of great promises

This Parliamentary Roundtable on the Special Complaints Commission (SCC) Bill is special for more reasons than one.

Firstly, there should be no need for this Parliamentary Roundtable as there should have been a Parliamentary Select Committee on the SCC Bill – what I had described as the fake Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) Bill – to collect public testimony and undertake public consultation on an important piece of proposed legislation with far-reaching consequences on the quality of life and governance in the country.

Secondly, this may be the last Parliamentary Roundtable for the current Parliament if it is dissolved without reconvening again, paving the way for the next general election.

The IPCMC was one of the great promises of the Abdullah premiership and the SCC Bill one of the great breaches by Abdullah of his pledges to the people and country.

It was almost exactly four years ago, 29th December 2003, that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced the formation of a Royal Commission into the Police.

This is the New Straits Times report of 30th December 2003 on Abdullah’s announcement in its report “A new image for police”:

PUTRAJAYA, Mon. – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today said a Royal Commission would study and recommend steps that could transform the police into a credible force.

He said the commission would also rectify the force’s weaknesses and review work procedures besides coming up with recommendations which could enhance the confidence of the public.

Abdullah said the proposal would be submitted to Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin for his consent.

He said the recommendations by the commission would help the police to discharge their duties more efficiently and operate in a more transparent and responsible manner.

Abdullah said the commission would also outline terms and conditions for recruitment and human resource development.

“We want to make the police force a unit which can be trusted. I hope the commission will help change the public’s perception of the force.”

Abdullah, who is also Home Minister, said the commission would also look into the welfare and family matters of police officers so that their morale and commitment would not be affected.

“The police must be well-versed in human rights when discharging their duties and dealing with the public. Police brutality, poor service, corruption and other negative traits must be eradicated,” Abdullah said at the opening of a conference of police commissioners, state police chiefs, General Operations Force brigade commanders and commandants at the Putrajaya Convention Centre.

The Royal Police Commission resulted in its 125 recommendations to transform it into an efficient, incorruptible, accountable, professional world-class police service with the three core objectives to keep crime low, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights, with its most important recommendation the establishment of the IPCMC.

After four years, Malaysians have the right to expect an IPCMC “lion” with powerful teeth and claws but instead, a toothless and clawless SCC mouse has been produced!

An independent, professional and incorruptible police force is not the only great pledge Abdullah had made in his “First 100 Days” which had been met with great breaches, and it is against the backdrop of a host of great breaches of great pledges that the SCC “mouse” instead of a IPCMC “lion” must be seen in perspective and context.

Just to give a quick snapshot of the other great pledges with their equally great breaches:

(1) Pledge to create a First World Parliament, which is not an appendage of the Executive. At the beginning of the 11th Parliament, I had met the Prime Minister proposing a First-World Parliament which adopts the full committee system with a Parliamentary Select Committee to shadow each ministry or important portfolio.

So far, there had been a Parliamentary Select Committee on amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code, which had completed its work resulting in consequential legislative action. There are also two other Select Committees, one on National Unity and Integration and the other on Integrity.
Both Select Committees are in danger of ending up as parliamentary scandals with no report or final report submitted to Parliament if general election is called by March.

There is another Parliamentary Select Committee which even MPs have forgotten – the Select Committee on Ethics for MPs, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak which was adopted by the Dewan Rakyat by way of a motion in May this year and which had its first meeting in June this year on its programme of action but went to sleep after that.

This is only one illustration of the lack of seriousness and political will to create a First-World Parliament.

(2) Restoration of the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary. Without even going into the Lingam Tape scandal, the state of the judiciary is a parlous one, which is why the new Chief Justice, Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad had promised a “house-cleaning”.

However, how can one man however well-meaning beat a system which is rotten? The 3-2 Federal Court judgment upholding the appointment of academician Dr. Badariah Sahamid confirms the view that Abdul Hamid is an “accidental Chief Justice” who will find it very uphill to carry the judicial system with him in his short tenure of at most less than a year as the top judicial officer of the land.

The two dissenting judgments by Abdul Hamid and Datuk Zulkefli Ahdmad Makinuddin in the Badariah Sahamid case, that High Court judges and Judicial Commissioners must have at least 10 years’ experience as an advocate or a member of judicial and legal service before they can be appointed are solid judgments which are definitely more meritorious and weighty than the majority judgments by the three Federal Court judges, which make nonsense of the Federal Court decision last year that a non-practising advocate may not be appointed Industrial Court Chairman.

However, this has not saved the country from the extraordinary spectacle of the Chief Justice ending up in a dissenting minority in a bench of five, although his judgment are overwhelmingly regarded as the proper construction of the law.

(3) An independent Election Commission.

Malaysians must have been surprised to read in the Star today that Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman had his tenure as Election Commission Chairman extended for another year yesterday!

To extend Rashid’s tenure as Election Commission Chairman from 65 to 66, the Constitution had to be amended, which the Dewan Rakyat passed on Dec. 11 under the protest of Opposition of MPs who staged a walkout at the violation of parliamentary privileges by the police who committed trespass of the parliamentary precincts on the same day to effect arrests of BERSIH activists demanding free, fair and clean elections.

Dewan Negara passed the Constitution Amendment Bill and adjourned on Dec. 24. December 25 was Christmas Day and a public holiday. Dec. 6 was a Wednesday and should be a normal Cabinet day, but Ministers were too much of a holiday mood to have their weekly Cabinet meeting.

If so, the Yang di Pertuan Agong should also be partaking of the holiday spirit of the Cabinet, but clearly this was not the case, as the Royal Assent and the gazetting of the Constitution Amendment Bill (the two final steps before a bill could become law) were both done on Dec. 26 so that Rashid could extend his tenure for another year yesterday!

This must be one of the fastest cases of securing the Royal Assent and gazetting the law immediately after passage by the Senate.

It shows that if the Barisan Nasional wants to do so, it could get a law enacted in super-quick time unlike the years it could take to translate important legislative proposals into law.

But where the Barisan Nasional wants to do anything, like ensuring a free, fair and clean election for the country, it will be impossible to move at all.

(4) Anti-Corruption pledge a total washout.

Finally, I need only to refer to another great breach of a great pledge by Abdullah – the anti-corruption campaign promised by the Prime Minister which is a total washout.

(Opening remarks at the Parliamentary Roundtable on the Special Complaints Commission Bill held at Committee Room 1, Parliament on Friday, 28th December 2007 at 9.30 am)

61 Replies to “Pak Lah’s host of great breaches of great promises”

  3. ///New Straits Times report of 30th December 2003 on Abdullah’s announcement in its report “A new image for police”:

    PUTRAJAYA, Mon. – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today said a Royal Commission would study and recommend steps that could transform the police into a credible force.///

    That was 4 years ago almost to the day, and the 125 recommendations were provided more than two years ago. Four years later the governemnt thought that it knows better than the RC they set up four years ago, and decides to have a SCC instead.

    A new image for police for sure, but it did not say it was going to be a good image. Just like the New economic policy, it was never meant to be a good policy for the nation, though it was an excellent tool for the reigning government to create votes bank, and for the powerful people to dip into public funds like their private purse.

    A New policies take decades to age, and remains new after 36 years. A new image will take forever to build, for the better, and it stays the same old way until there is a change of government.

    PM AAB said that it was 15 minutes in the field after four years on the throne. A 90 minutes game will be 24 years for him, ending in 2027. The score will be 0-0.

  4. Lingam spoke of “the other camp” in his conversation with Ahmad Fairuz.
    From recent Federal Court judgments, I will not be far off the mark to assume that “the other camp” is in the majority and the CJ will have an uphill task cleaning up the bench.

  6. My 2cents worth:

    “a Royal Commission would study and recommend steps that could transform the police into a credible force.” – admitting that the current force is not credible?

    “the commission would also rectify the force’s weaknesses and review work procedures besides coming up with recommendations which could enhance the confidence of the public.” – admitting that the current force has indeed weaknesses and the public’s confidence in the force is questionable?

    “recommendations by the commission would help the police to discharge their duties more efficiently and operate in a more transparent and responsible manner.” – admitting that the current force is inefficient, not transparent and irresponsible?

    “the commission would also outline terms and conditions for recruitment and human resource development.” – admitting faults and shortcomings in the current human resource recruitment and development procedures/ policies?

    “We want to make the police force a unit which can be trusted. I hope the commission will help change the public’s perception of the force.” – admitting the force cannot be trusted and similar to the earlier public confidence remark?

    “the welfare and family matters of police officers so that their morale and commitment would not be affected.” – admitting that if the above measurements are really taken seriously it will affect the side-rice-bowl of the force and the government may lose their control over the force? If the force is doing what it is supposed to, then morale and commitment should not be affected by whatever commission, those who walk in the light will never be afraid of the dark.

    “The police must be well-versed in human rights when discharging their duties and dealing with the public. Police brutality, poor service, corruption and other negative traits must be eradicated ” – admitting that the force is not well verse in human rights; brutality, poor service, corruption and other negative traits are common?

    YB Lim i totally agree with you on the whitewash of the anti-corruption “direct-sales” pitch. If it was seriously taken up, what happened to the performance monitoring and control measures of the force? Why wait until after 4 years, where i guess the carpet can no longer accommodate the dust under it. No pro-active actions were taken to improve and to stop the problems/ issues upon being identified.

    In my opinion, the force is not entirely to blame for their performance, there are ofcourse nice apples among the rotten ones and what more the carrier of the baskets of apples is just not doing the job diligently. What is the possibility of the force breaking from the government’s control and going independent? Then maybe they can start catching the real crooks as well as those who are making their life difficult. But then again for those in the force who have been well taken care of, are merely puppets and tainted by the same darkness.

    The People, we can make a difference.

  10. “…Abdullah, who is also Home Minister, said the commission would also look into the welfare and family matters of police officers so that their morale and commitment would not be affected.”

    This was one of the objectives of the IPCMC and I think a very noble one indeed to reward those in the PDRM who serve with dedication and honesty. I do not think the SCC now has this as part of its objectives. In short, AAB has not only renegaded to the public on the IPCMC , he has also shortchanged the PDRM with his flip flop indecisive decision to go with the SCC.

  11. The PM has made the most basic error of promising much and delivering little.

    Most good salespeople will try to deliver more than what is promised so the customer is pleasantly surprised and will want to continue the relationship or give a good reference.

    Guess the management rule holds true.
    Parkinson’s Law?
    “Everyone gets promoted to his level of incompetence”.

    As voters we need to select the right people to lead the nation.

  12. “The two dissenting judgments by Abdul Hamid and Datuk Zulkefli Ahdmad Makinuddin in the Badariah Sahamid case, that High Court judges and Judicial Commissioners must have at least 10 years’ experience as an advocate or a member of judicial and legal service before they can be appointed are solid judgments which are definitely more meritorious and weighty than the majority judgments by the three Federal Court judges, which make nonsense of the Federal Court decision last year that a non-practising advocate may not be appointed Industrial Court Chairman.

    However, this has not saved the country from the extraordinary spectacle of the Chief Justice ending up in a dissenting minority in a bench of five, although his judgment are overwhelmingly regarded as the proper construction of the law.”
    —————————————————————-

    As long as the judiciary is not clean up, you will always have “maggots eating up the meaning of constitutionalism and the concept of separation of powers.”

    The 3:2 decision of Dr. Badariah’s case, where the Chief Justice Abdul Hamid’s leading judgment is the DISSENTING JUDGMENT. It makes a mockery of the other 3 majority judgments that the other 3 respective judges had delivered. Statements such as “criticises the Bar, asking why the Bar did not object to Datuk Visu’s appointment but now chose to object to Badariah’s appointment….is a precedent and it would be unfair for the Bar to object now holding that the court cannot sanction Bar’s unconscionable conduct!….. Accusing the Bar of practising double standards, Azmel FCJ dismissed Bar’s clam with costs.” just makes me wondered whether there’s “HIGHER HANDS” behind the majority judgment delivered by our 3 learned Federal Court Judges.

    And I wouldn’t be surprise that the same 2 Federal Court Judges in Dr. Badariah’s case; Nik Hashim and Azmel Ma’amor are also sitting and presiding on Subashini’s case. Just look at their pathetic judgments, “a spouse who had embraced Islam could convert his or her children without the consent of the other spouse……..Although, the syariah courts are state courts, they are not lower in status than the civil court. I would say they are of equal standing under the Constitution…..”

    That means Subashini cannot stop her estranged husband from converting their younger child and left her to wondered, as she told reporters, that “it is unfair to treat me like this. I gave birth to our children and I have a right to make a decision about my children, as a mother…..where is my right, as a mother?….”

    Unbelievable. On one hand, the Federal Court with majority decision stated that the High Court(Civil) still has jurisdiction to hear cases involving non-Muslim spouses involved in a matrimonial disputes, even though the other partner had converted to Islam, but on the other hand, the court cannot stop Saravanan from converting their second child!

    My..my….it defies my logic….I’m confused……Someone please find those maggots and clean them up before the judiciary goes into oblivion.

  13. “….a spouse who had embraced Islam could convert his or her children without the consent of the other spouse……” – 2:1 majority decision.

    Hypothetical situation. What if Subashini seeks redress under Section 51(1) of the 1976 Act(Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act) to dissolved her marriage and seek custody of her 2 children, and the court granted her the dissolution and custody of the 2 children, which by then, already converted to Islam by Saravanan, can Subashini “unconvert” her 2 children back to Hinduism under Article 12(4) of the Constitution, which states that the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian, means a single parent?

  15. “///New Straits Times report of 30th December 2003 on Abdullah’s announcement in its report “A new image for police”:

    PUTRAJAYA, Mon. – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today said a Royal Commission would study and recommend steps that could transform the police into a credible force./// Loh

    Wow!! That is quite a search into the archives! How do I get to search the archives as far as 2003?

  16. “…can Subashini “unconvert” her 2 children back to Hinduism under Article 12(4) of the Constitution, which states that the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian, means a single parent?”

    Unfortunately the Constitution has to be read as a whole. That means a constitutional provision has to be read in a manner that would be consistent with all the other provisions. You cannot pick one Article or Clause or sub-clause out and interpret it in isolation and without regard to other related provisions within the Constitution.

    Then there is the Article 121(1A).

  19. These things could never happen… or could they?

    Malaysia: Vijay Singh declared persona non grata by Malaysia citing a Hindu plot to convert Malays. Top cleric issues a fatwah against all Indonesian Muslims. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi declares the entire country a construction project and awards the contract to his son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin.

    http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=956&Itemid=35

  20. The SCC is symbolic of Badawi administration – broken promises, return to old ways of doing things, etc. Ironically, police reform is one of the first great promise of Badawi administration and 4 years on, we can see where we are and its not just the police but the whole administration itself.

    And its not just about broken promises. If you think it through, the SCC is also about misleading the public. They are trying to pass it off as doing something about police reform when its really a copy of what is already existing – a waste of time, money.

    It symbolizes everything this administration is really is. Think of the crooked bridge. It was cancelled, brought back again and cancelled again and what we get is nothing but THE MONEY WAS SPENT ANYWAY. We get nothing but the illusion something has been done.

    Chinese school, Badawi came in with promises of fully supporting Chinese schools and after 4 years, when they are in deep trouble, they throw a few crumbs of starting to move a couple of Chinese schools and make a big deal out of it. Misleading.

    Reforming UMNO/BN? What has happen with that? Except for sidelining a couple of amibitious one, its gone nowhere especially in the last two years. Zukifli Mat Deros not only did not get punished but even prospered.

    This administration is still around because high oil and other commodity prices has enabled it in indulge in returning to the old ways of doing things. It seeks to extend the way by removing subsidies and taking that extra income and continue doing what it has been doing.

    This SCC is exactly that, its nothing more than a paper shuffle that gives a few politically compliant associates jobs and resume buffing but in reality, it does nothing much more for the rakyat – which what the the Badawi administration really is. You could replace the entire administration with robots and things would still work the same.

  22. These things could never happen… or could they?

    Malaysia: Vijay Singh declared persona non grata by Malaysia citing a Hindu plot to convert Malays. Top cleric issues a fatwah against all Indonesian Muslims. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi declares the entire country a construction project and awards the contract to his son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin.
    http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=956&Itemid=35

  24. I agree with what Jamesy said about the majority’s decision of Subashini’s case being in defiance of logic.

    Indeed for such an important decision having vast societal implications, the fact that the chief of judiciary – Chief Justice Abdul Hamid – was a dissenter from the majority’s view, is, a matter disconcertingly quite out of the ordinary, raising concerns, as what YB Kit said, whether “one man however well-meaning beat a system which is rotten”.

    Just when we thought that the issue of “independence” of judges has been highlighted by Lingam Video Clip scandal, our attention is now drawn to an additional dimension of the problem relating to quality as well, which explains Kit’s statement, “even without even going into the Lingam Tape scandal, the state of the judiciary is a parlous one”…

    Of all the reneging of pledges, the one of greatest concern to me is the one in respect to the state of our judiciary.

    This is most important because the courts, especially the apex courts, are the ultimate arbiters of all our rights and obligations in contention in a civilized society.

    More than ever, a well qualified and ethnically and gender-diverse bench has assumed the greatest importance today. I believe that such a diverse composition will, as a first step, mitigate some of the problems, which our institution of Judiciary faces today.

    Every now and then we hear our ruling politicians extolling the virtues of unity in diversity. It is supposed to be the unique asset and strength of Malaysia : but where is this ethos of diversity in places of power – whether Judiciary or Civil Service – where it counts?

    The political leadership must take the rudder, plan, chart and navigate the course of the ship of state towards safe harbour rather than leave it, laissez-faire, tossed on the waves of chance.

    The greatest irony, so far, is that where matters are/were actually planned – they are/were planned or perceived to be planned not for the good of all or necessarily the nation’s interest but that of sectional and parochial, if not, vested interests.

    And better results have turned out due to chance and accident – like the case of Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad’s assuming quite unexpectedly, and by default, the top slot left by Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in the wake of the Lingam Video Clip scandal.

    Abdul Hamid Mohamad has pleasantly surprised me with the quality and common sense of his minority dissenting judgment in Subashini.

    He has made courageous pledge of “house-cleaning” of the judiciary and if his judgment in Subashini’s case is anything to go by, he evinces the promise and hope of getting it done.

    It is therefore unfortunate that his tenure is only “acting”, bridging the time before new Court of Appeal President, Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi most likely take over.

    I say the leadership should give Abdul Hamid Mohamad a chance – and a longer tenure – to restore our Judiciary to the former position of enjoying public confidence.

    If, necessary, amend the Constitution to pave the way for his tenure to be extended. It will be an act that the public will not object if convinced of his sincerity – rather than amending the constitution to extend the tenure of the Election Commission’s head by 1 year that the Civil Society and Bersih protest against.

    It is a sad reflection of the state of affairs, as I said, that more favourable results ensue from accidental causes than the planned ones!

    Otherwise than extending tenure, at least give Abdul Hamid Mohamad the mandate and free hand to immediately advise the government on the recruitment and promotion of judges based on the criteria of quality, impartiality, independence and gender blind diversity.

  26. Yes Badawi broke promises and he misled. But that is not exactly what the issue is for the next election. Its about what we want to be.

    For too long this country has fallen short of trying to determine its destiny, surviving on opportunity and endowment. The issue really is when do we stop doing that and finally decide that we will determine and control our destiny and who we are. We bought into Badawi promises and suppose honesty because finally, we thought, we are not going to let our failures determine the limits of what we can do but that we would let our strengths and potential determine what we can achieve.

    And that is it, Badawi is about his and our own failures limit what we are and can be. We can continue this way to fight another day but the fight gets tiring and sooner or later, those problems we refuse to deal with come back to haunt us again and the problems and the cost gets even bigger.

    There is no way our nation can decide such an important fundamental issue of the character of our nation this election. But we decided 4 years ago that we could become something we are not and have failed to be. The question of this election for the nation is do we decide to continue with what we believed in 4 years ago or do we shirk back and say that we are an underserving nation not worthy of equal respect from others.

  27. No, I’ve not gone through 116 pages of the judgment – and don’t intend to do so, for now , much of which are, I understand, devoted to minority dissenting judgment. However from excerpts quoted in secondary sources and newspapers, it is my sense that the crux of majority judgment and its findings is, with respect, not right. When I have time, I will explain why I think so. Why don’t you look at some of these excerpts and tell me what you think.

  29. More reason why the IPCMC is needed:

    More than a hundred activists from DAP, PR, Policewatch, Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture and Hindraf gathered outside the Bukit Aman police HQ from 11am this morning to support the family of Letchumanan A/L Kathan. Lachumanan died in police lockup No 6 in Raub police station on 18 Dec 2007 ‘mysteriously’. The police claimed that he has committed suicide with a blanket.

    A memo endorsed by DAP, PKR, Policewatch and Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture was handed over to ASP Venu of Bukit Aman. He promised to hand over the memo to the IGP. The activists were upset that Venu refused to hold a dialogue inside the police HQ but instead preferred to accept the memo outside the police HQ (at the roadside). In short, the delegation was not treated with protocol and respect.
    http://colour-blind.org/wordpress/?p=419

  32. By now, everyone should realise that Pak Lah is nothing but a super dumbo.
    Whatever he said, you have to give 99.9% discount on the truth of it. So far what great things he had done for M’sia?
    Oh yes, most travelled PM in Malaysia and some said even whole of Asia!!!
    Tak boleh percaya dia la!!! Too often he backtrack on his words. Now the Allah issue, he just kept quiet. you know why?
    He is surveying the sentiments of the public especially UMNO. If most spoke against the Herald, he would come out with the statement supporting the crowd. He is a real “INVERTEBRATE”””

  34. Undergrad2,

    Further to what you raised, the Court was right in first part of the decision – that the civil court continues to have jurisdiction over him (the husband) since the civil marriage was solemnised by civil law, the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

    Where there was no unanimity was the majority’s decision that the husband had a unilateral right as Muslim convert to also convert the child of the marriage to Islam without the consent of the wife.

    This is an important issue. The whole battle in court was to fight over this issue of whether the husband could as a convert to assert Muslim personal and religious laws and seek remedies in the Syariah to convert and have custody over the children.

    The Majority gave him that right.

    The Majority based their decision on the word ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which states that the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian, that means a single parent.

    This cannot, with respect, be right.

    Where a child has two parents, the single one can decide only if the other does not object. Because the objector is also a parent. To disregard her objection is equally tantamount to vitiating the right of decision of a parent under Article 12(4) in respect of the religion of her children under the age of 18 years! Secondly, unless contrary intention is clear in Article 12(4) – whichj I don’t think it is – in the interpretation of a legal word like “parent”, the singular would encompass the plural, and vice versa as per our Interpretation Act 1967.

    On issue of custody, it is illogical to, on one hand, decide that civil law applies to the Saravanan/Subashini’s marriage by virtue of it being solemnized under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 and yet decide, by reason only that one of the spouses having subsequently converted to Islam, Sharia would apply to custody issues in superiority over these same issues already governed under civil law [Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976] as ancillary reliefs.

    Custody is an ancillary issue relating to marriage and its breakup. If one says marriage and its breakup is governed under the regime of civil law then all ancillary issues, including custody, ought likewise to be so governed.

    One cannot have an open ended “neither here nor there” situation by saying that just because one spouse subsequently converted, then Shariah could also intrude and intervene on custody issue when it is already governed under Civil Law.

    Where does article 12(1)(A) of Constitution say Syariah could subsequently intervene as superior law over civil, to take away something like custody which is already under civil law jurisdiction?

    As Jamesy pointed out, one cannot have a situation where the wife Subashini is still entitled to seek redress under Section 51(1) of the 1976 Act (Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act) to seek custody of her 2 children whilst Saravanan retains his right as Muslim convert to apply to Shariah courts to get custody.

    To allow such a situation to happen leads to absurd consequences as when hypothetically a civil court decides the wife shall have custody and Syariah court decides the muslim husband has the custody – now which court or whose decision is to prevail? Especially when, as I earlier said, article 121(1)A of the Constitution creating this bifurcation of 2 separate mutually exclusive streams of legal jurisdictions – civil and sharia – is silent as to which prevails in an event of conflict!

    One should not appoint one person captain for a ship before it embarks on its journey with a proviso that a second person may also be empowered to give different directions as if he were appointed co-captain if he has converted in the course of the journey, without heed that the two captains may decide on diametrically opposite course without rules as to whose decision will prevail in a conflict.

    Any judicial decision that may lead to such a problem of dilemma cannot be defended as being a god one – with all due respect. The logic is to apply civil law throughout once it is predetermined and conceded that civil law aplied to a civil marriage. There is order and certainty in the way people can structure theirs including matrimonial affairs. The moment sharia could also apply when one party subsequenly converts – and by so doing he could renege his obligations asumed earlier under civil law – disrupt this order and the very certainty that it is the object of law to provide. It will provide an avenue for people to just renege comitments by simple expedience of conversion. This should not be allowed; no law should be interpreted to allow the breaking of comitments like this to throw certainty and order out of the window. To allow so is, with all respect, a triumph of emotions over logic!

  37. As Jeffrey had urged in his post of December 29th, 2007 at 10: 04.15 re the necessity of amending the Constitution, if required, to pave the way for Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad’s tenure to be extended, failure or the lack of will by the leadership in AAB administration to carry it out would easily and justifiably be construed by the public that it harbours an ulterior motive in its rapid moves in both Dewans and in securing Royal Assent in order to extend Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman’s tenure as Election Commission Chairman.

    But AAB must be in a quagmire. For to allow Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad sufficient time to carry out his courageous pledge of “house-cleaning” of the judiciary would itself have far reaching consequences in undermining UMNO’s intricate web of defence to protect itself against the litany of potentially damaging cases.

  39. Empty tin vessel makes the most noise!

    Woe upon us who made the wrong decision 4 years ago. We’ve set our country backwards by decades.

    It is not going to be fast and easy to undo the damages done which is entrenched so deep into the system since TM’s days.

    At a time of global competition and survival of the fittest, we can only think of “Saya Anti-Rasuah” badges? This is so outdated mode of doing things.

    As in like doing promotions through printing, events – spending so much on the launches and so forth but very little trickle downwards.

  41. AAB has big ears, but SELECTIVE hearing.

    I do not believe he is stupid, but I know he think SELECTIVELY.

    He still has good eye sight, but he see SELECTIVELY.

    He is a SELECTIVE person (though may not be in terms wife), he gave great promises before GE but breached them after GE.

    Come this GE, time for us to be SELECTIVE, boot him out!

  42. Jeffrey,

    I’ve not read the Judgment, intimidating as it is by the sheer volume – 116 pages! But just a small comment to add further to yours.

    “The Majority based their decision on the word ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which states that “the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian, that means a single parent.” This cannot, with respect, be right.” Jeffrey QC

    I’d agree with you if by ‘right’ you mean this cannot be the intent of Parliament. I do not think Article 12 Clause (4) has been amended since Parliament first passed the Constitution.

    We’re dealing with an Article post Article 121(1A) which makes it even more urgent that other related provisions within the Constitution be looked at afresh and amended accordingly where there is ambiguity, where there is lacuna in the law etc.

    It has been some 20 years since Article 121(1A) was passed – not to mention the controversial manner the Bill was steamrolled through Parliament in its way to become law. There is no excuse. It reveals if nothing else the inherent weakness in our parliamentary system. The government’s work is supposed to be checked by various Parliamentary committees and the work involved should withstand close scrutiny on its way to become law.

    Article 12(4), I respectfully submit, envisages a situation when both are from the same religion. Just like ‘his parent’ i.e. the use of a gender refers to both genders, I submit respectfully, that the word “parent” the use of singular is meant to include the plural.

    I don’t know what the learned justices have had to say since I’ve not read the judgment. So happy reading!

    Just my 2-cents over an issue which could go on and go on unless amendments are made.

  43. I think it is best seen as a human rights issue and our Constitution is supposed to be for all Malaysians. But then we cannot ignore the law as it stands. UMNO is not keen, to say the least, on amending the Constitution to rid it off the inherent ambiguities in some of its provisions especially post Article 121(1A) when amending the Constitution means their rights as Muslims and Malays would be diluted.

    They’d rather see those caught within the legal labyrinth remain in legal limbo. It is in their political interest to do so.

    What do they say about ‘democracy’ if not it has to come from the bottom and not top down.

  44. Immediately when Pak Lah became PM, he vowed to wipe out corruption. Firstly by visiting govt department to spot check – the Immigration dept was first.

    But now what happened? I believe the Mahathir era was much better. I think the people of Malaysia can feel it for themselves.

    It is worse during the Badawi era. At least Malaysia fared better in Transparancy International during Mahathir’s time.

    GE is coming – vote DAP or PKR.

  45. DEar Undergrad2,

    I refer to your statement. UMNO or MAlays will not amend Constitution if it compromises the position of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia. That is a known fact.

    However, I am not so sure about your allegation on their preference to put affected people in legal limbo. Certainly that is not what UMNO , or Malay wants or intend to happen. What certain court cases in Malaysia shows that there are loopholes that need to be amended.

    That is all. Certainly Kuran or Islam never teaches its followers to file divorce because of conversion to Islam. Perhaps you are not aware of this saying, so famous in Islamic tradition that ” those most hated thing that Allah allowed muslim to make is divorce”.

  46. “However, I am not so sure about your allegation on their preference to put affected people in legal limbo. Certainly that is not what UMNO , or Malay wants or intend to happen. What certain court cases in Malaysia shows that there are loopholes that need to be amended.” shamshul anual

    Well, by not amending the law that’s what is happening. And by not adopting a proactive approach to issues as urgent as these and as important as these people have been caught and are being caught within the legal labyrinth and they remain in legal limbo.

    What are left with if not the inference that they do not want to disturb the status quo? What with the GE looming. It would be an admission that they should have acted sooner than later. It would be an admission to the base of the political party on the right that when push comes to shove their leaders buckle. Remember politics is all about public perception.

    What court cases show is that our judiciary is not independent of the executive.

  47. They need to look at these issues as human rights issues, that the Federal Constitution is meant for every Malaysian though Islam is the religion of the federation – and amend the constitution accordingly. But then we have Article 121(1A).

    There is the all important question of how far the controversial Article 121(1A) has moved away from the intent of Parliament and the spirit of the Constitution when it passed the Federal Constitution of Malaya 1957.

    They have been playing politics with religion for decades. Don’t think they are about to stop now.

  48. The UMNO led government could have proposed the setting up of a special court to handle the issues that our civil courts say they have no jurisdiction over, and our syariah courts say they have because of the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction. The did not. So what does that tell us??

  49. Re: Muslim dress code

    Perhaps we could learn something from the modern Orthodox Jews – who have a lot in common with Christians and Muslims because of their common religious tradition.

    Here’s the “Orthodox observance spectrum,” in clothing terms, as far as I’ve been able to determine (corrections and/or clarifications welcome):

    (a) what Chana calls “cultural Modern Orthodox” (they like the name but don’t always play by the rules of the game):

    Woman–sleeveless or sleeved, pants or skirt, bare head for a married woman, except, perhaps, in synagogue

    Man–kippah (of any color[s]) in synagogue only

    (b) left-wing Modern Orthodox (where you won’t get thrown out of synagogue for starting a women’s tefillah (prayer) group, or, maybe even (gasp!) a “partnership minyan”):

    Woman–short sleeves, pants or skirt, head-covering for a married woman optional in general, but often considered required in synagogue
    Man–kippah (of any color[s]) or hat (of the sports variety), except, perhaps, at work
    (c) right-wing Modern Orthodox, also known as Centrist (may or may not permit women’s tefillah groups, depending on the rabbi and/or synagogue and/or community):

    Woman–short to elbow-covering sleeves, skirt only, head-covering for a married woman, perhaps a greater concern for modesty in terms of length of skirt and height of top

    Man–kippah (of any color[s]) or hat (of the sports variety) at all times

    (d) “Yeshivish”:

    Woman–sleeves that cover at least the elbow, skirt only, head-covering for a married woman, perhaps a greater concern for modesty in terms of length of skirt, top that covers all but about an inch of the collarbone at the center (leaving room for a short necklace) or covers the collarbone completely

    Man–kippah (almost always black) or hat (almost always black, but, occasionally, for informal occasions, of the sports variety) at all times, white shirt (at least for Sabbath and holidays), possibly a black suit

    (e) Chareidi (fervently Orthodox, of both Chassidic and non-Chassidic [mitnagdic (?)] varieties):

    Woman–long sleeves, skirt only, head-covering that covers the hair completely for a married woman, perhaps a greater concern for modesty in terms of length of skirt, top that covers the collarbone completely. One of my co-workers tells me that some of the women in the Chareidi community in Lakewood, New Jersey have taken to wearing black and white clothing, as the men do.

    Man–black kippah or hat (or Chassidic fur hat, differing in design depending on your Chassidic group) at all times; black suit; white shirt at all times (even when playing hard-rock guitar at a concert open to the general public).

    Then, of course, there are the Ashkenazi/Sefardi (B’nei Edot HaMizrach/”Mizrachi”?) differences of opinion:

    1. Is wearing a wig/sheitel a permissible way for a married woman to cover her hair? Ashkenazi rabbinate–yes; Sefardi rabbinate–no (or so I’ve heard).

    2. Are bare feet permissible, or must a female of 12 years or older cover at least her ankles? I’ve become aware of this issue only within the last two or three months. My impression is that this is a hot country/cold country split: Those whose ancestors came from countries where the wearing of sandals was standard see nothing immodest about bare toes, whereas the rest of us poor souls (soles?) . . .

  50. Most memorable quotes from Sleepy ‘Ead or Big Ears:

    “Work with me, not for me.” 2004

    “We are not in the business of cheating the people.” 2005

    “I am fair, I will always be fair.” 2007

    “We do not engage in duplicity.” 2007

    We will remember the AAB administration for these biggest jokes in the past 4 years.

  53. Perhaps his statements need some qualification, as stated below.

    “Work with me, not for me.” 2004 – Together we will rob all Malaysians of their wealth and dignity.

    “We are not in the business of cheating the people.” 2005 – We just steal and rob, cheating is peanuts.

    “I am fair, I will always be fair.” 2007 – Only to certain groups of privileged people, not the whole population

    “We do not engage in duplicity.” 2007 – Always tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but I will only tell that much of the truth that will do me the most good.

  55. Rakyat must realize it is dangerus to give more than 2/3, esp, now is more than 8/9, to a ruling party, there is no check n balance, the ruling party can amend constitution at will,
    eg, election can be amended to be from every 5 years to every 9 years, members of ruling party can hv 2 votes, ruling party area 1 seat for 5000 voters, opposition area, 1 seat for 99900 voters, there is nothing rakyat can do.
    If all don’t work, create some disturbance, n declare emergency, suspend election if name of national security, What can U do??
    So, U Must Think n vote wisely now.

  56. alaneth:

    GE is coming – vote DAP or PKR.

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

    May I add? VOTE PAS as well.

    They are not as extremist as the media wants us to believe, spins it to be.

    Off and on, we do hear stupid suggestions coming from PAS being blown up. Don’t we hear all these monkey businesses stuff from BN as well? In fact? Many more folds.

    I would be quite comfortable with PAS – as much as the non-Muslims in Kelantan. Go visit Kelantan. It is more progressive. People are less divisive over issues of religion. They do not play divide and conquer. And there is not as much as Little Napoleons there.

    And we do not see many Zakarias there.

    The largest Buddha is there. Same for freedom of practice of other religions like Hinduism and Christianity.

    There is more tolerance in Kelantan.

    There used to be a lot of tolerance in Sabah. No longer after the wind of change is blown to there. People are started to get divisive. It is very sad. I am very glad people of Sarawak have spoken out their wishes in the recent by-elections.

  58. Comments:
    [ ]
    In itself, its OK. You may comment on my religion, its free speech. But when you mention stuff like this “…Kitab-kitab agama Hindu ini walaupun telah dirubah dan dikotori dengan begitu teruk…” Well, still OK, I guess.

    The part that makes me reject whatever you are peddling is when you say its “wajib” to convert the non muslims.
    http://pasnationalunity.blogspot.com/2007/12/pas-indian-supporters-bridging-earth.html

  59. Want to change your religion in malaysia? No problem, after you have passed away…

    http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=957&Itemid=31
    Only once in history have Malaysia’s sayriah courts ruled to allow anyone to change religious identity and that case involved an 89-year old woman named Nyonya Tahir who converted to Buddhism in 1936. Her decision was accepted 69 years later in 2006, after she had died.

  61. None of us is as good as all of us ..especially in this country.
    Our foreparents have every intentions to build a good future for all their children and generations to come and what we done is trying to be more than what they given us.
    AAB knew that he will never improves the country overall situations as the level of corruption already peaked with too many high powered people are in the network.
    He done the best within them by ‘killing’ off those weaker ones and took over the ‘businesses’ and at the same time reminded those strong ones about their balance days.
    Having to take over the country from TDM and holding two main portfolios which given him the upmost veto to control everyone in the network and holding to all informations of their wrong doings proves that his strategies are working within his expectations.
    Like any of these ‘corrupted’ individuals. their have build their castle elsewhere part of the world and ready to moved over should this country ‘blown off’ her top one day.
    Those ‘corruptor’ second liners also want to find a way out, just in case and soon too many levels also shared the same planning.
    Corruption here are mainly because they want to live like king as soon as possible and get out from here before the time bomb explode.

Leave a Reply