The Cabinet at its meeting today must take collective Ministerial stand to endorse or dissociate from the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nancy Shukri’s parliamentary answer to the Penang Chief Minister and Bagan Member of Parliament Lim Guan Eng that Perkasa President, Datuk Ibrahim Ali is not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible as Ibrahim was defending the sanctity of Islam and his action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution.
Borneo Post, in a report yesterday headlined “Nancy says she does not support Ibrahim Ali or his religious views”, quoted Nancy as making the following statement through her political secretary Kamaluddin Effendie:
“Neither the police nor AG (Attorney-General) can give any reply in Parliament. I, as the de-facto Law Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, had to do it on their behalf. Whatever were the findings of the police or the decision of the AG, I read it out in Parliament because they could not do it there.
“It must be made known that it was the AG’s decision not to charge Dato Ibrahim under the Sedition Act, and the decision was made based on the police investigation.
“As a minister or one of the leaders of the nation, I have to support the rule of the law, but it does not mean I agree with Dato Ibrahim’s extreme views.”
Nancy has a very mixed-up notion of the “the rule of law”.
Be that as it may, there are several questions and issues which must be resolved at the Cabinet meeting today.
Firstly, is it the police stand that Ibrahim should not be prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible as Ibrahim was defending the sanctity of Islam and his action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution? Is this the recommendation of the police in their investigation papers submitted to the AG’s Chambers? Or did the police made no recommendations whatsoever in their investigation papers?
Secondly, is the stand of the Attorney-General’s Chambers not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali the same as the recommendation of the police, or did the AG’s Chambers arrived at this stand without any recommendation by the police?
Thirdly, is this stand of the AG Chambers fully endorsed by the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Gani Patail?
Fourthly, are the Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively endorsing or repudiating the stand taken by the Attorney-General’s Chambers that Ibrahim Ali should not be prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the ground that Ibrahim was defending the sanctity of Islam and his action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution?
Although Article 145(3) of the Malaysian Constitution vests in the Attorney-General the sole discretionary power “to institute, continue or discontinue any proceedings for any offence”, the AG’s prosecution decisions are actions of the Executive and not of the Judiciary, which means the Prime Minister and the Cabinet must assume full collective responsibility for the AG’s decisions and actions and cannot disclaim responsibility in any manner.
If the Attorney-General had flouted or deviated from the policy direction of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, as for instance taking the country in the direction of being the world’s worst democracy instead of the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s pledge of being the world’s best democracy, the Prime Minister and Cabinet should either acquiesce or repudiate and dissociate themselves from the Attorney-General’s decision and actions.
If the former, i.e. the Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively endorsing the Attorney-General’s decisions and actions, then Ministers who do not agree that Ibrahim Ali should not be prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible because he was defending the sanctity of Islam and is protected by Article 11(4) of the Constitution has only one honourable way out – to resign from Najib’s Cabinet.
What is in store in today’s Cabinet meeting?
Will it endorse or repudiate the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali?
If the former, how many Ministers will resign in protest on a matter of principle as it is a major and even fundamental violation of Najib’s pledge to lead a moderate nation based on the wasatiyyah principles of justice, balance and excellence and not to compromise or give in to extremism and intolerance of any form?