The Truth Revealed

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

ZAID CALLS FOR REPEAL OF ISA IN OPEN LETTER TO PM


DATUK MOHD ZAID IBRAHIM

29 September 2008

YAB Dato’ Seri Abdullah Badawi
Prime Minister of Malaysia
5th Floor, East Wing
Perdana Putra Building
Putrajaya
Malaysia

Dear Mr Prime Minister

IN our proclamation of independence, our first prime minister gave voice to the lofty aspirations and dreams of the people of Malaya: that Malaya was founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and the promise that collectively we would always strive to improve the welfare and happiness of its people.

Many years have passed since that momentous occasion and those aspirations and dreams remain true and are as relevant to us today as they were then. This was made possible by a strong grasp of fundamentals in the early period of this nation.

The federal constitution and the laws made pursuant to it were well founded; they embodied the key elements of a democracy built on the rule of law. The Malaysian judiciary once commanded great respect from Malaysians and was hailed as a beacon for other nations.

Our earlier prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn were truly leaders of integrity, patriots in their own right and most importantly, men of humility. They believed in and built this nation on the principles and values enunciated in our constitution.

Even when they had to enact the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, they were very cautious and apologetic about it. Tunku stated clearly that the Act was passed to deal with the communist threat.

"My cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silence lawful dissent," was what the Tunku said.

Our third prime minister, Tun Hussein Onn, reinforced this position by saying that the ISA was not intended to repress lawful political opposition and democratic activity on the part of the citizenry.

The events of the last three weeks have compelled me to review the way in which the ISA has been used. This exercise has sadly led me to the conclusion that the government has time and time again failed the people of this country in repeatedly reneging on that solemn promise made by Tunku Abdul Rahman.

This has been made possible because the government and the law have mistakenly allowed the minister of home affairs to detain anyone for whatever reason he thinks fit. This subjective discretion has been abused to further certain political interests.

History is the great teacher and speaks volumes in this regard. Even a cursory examination of the manner in which the ISA has been used almost from its inception would reveal the extent to which its intended purpose has been subjugated to the politics of the day.

Regrettably, Tunku Abdul Rahman himself reneged on his promise. In 1965, his administration detained Burhanuddin Helmi, the truly towering Malay intellectual, a nationalist who happened to be a PAS leader. He was kept in detention until his death in 1969. Helmi was a political opponent and could by no stretch of the imagination be considered to have been involved in the armed rebellion or communism that the ISA was designed to deal with.

This detention was an aberration, a regrettable moment where politics had been permitted to trump the rule of law. It unfortunately appears to have set a precedent and many detentions of persons viewed as having been threatening to the incumbent administration followed through the years.

Even our literary giant, ‘sasterawan negara’ the late Tan Sri A Samad Ismail was subjected to the ISA in 1976. How could he have been a threat to national security?

I need not remind you of the terrible impact of the 1987 'Operasi Lalang.' Its spectre haunts the government as much as it does the peace-loving people of this nation, casting a gloom over all of us. There were and still are many unanswered questions about those dark hours when more than a hundred persons were detained for purportedly being threats to national security. Why they were detained has never been made clear to Malaysians.

Similarly, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why they were never charged in court. Those detainees included amongst their numbers senior opposition members of parliament who are still active in Parliament today.

The only thing that is certain about that period was that Umno was facing a leadership crisis. Isn’t it coincidental that the recent spate of ISA arrests has occurred when Umno is again having a leadership crisis?

In 2001, Keadilan ‘reformasi’ activists were detained in an exercise that the Federal Court declared was in bad faith and unlawful. The continued detention of those that were not released earlier in the Kamunting detention facility was made possible only by the fact that the ISA had been questionably amended in 1988 to preclude judicial review of the minister’s order to detain.

Malaysians were told that these detainees had been attempting to overthrow the government via militant means and violent demonstrations. Seven years have gone and yet no evidence in support of this assertion has been presented. Compounding the confusion even further, one of these so-called militants, Ezam Mohamad Noor, recently rejoined Umno to great fanfare, as a prized catch it would seem.

At around the same time, members of PAS were also detained for purportedly being militant and allegedly having links to international terrorist networks. Those detained included Nik Adli, the son of Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. Malaysians were made a promise by the government that evidence of the alleged terrorist activities and links of these detainees would be disclosed. To date no such evidence has been produced.

The same formula was used in late 2007 when the Hindraf 5 were detained. Malaysians were told once again that these individuals were involved in efforts to overthrow the government and had links with the militant Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam of Sri Lanka. To date no concrete evidence have been presented to support this assertion.

It would seem therefore that the five were detained for their involvement in efforts that led to a mobilisation of Indian Malaysians to express, through peaceful means; their frustration against the way in which their community had been allowed to be marginalised. This cause has since been recognised as a legitimate one. The Hindraf demonstration is nothing extraordinary as such assemblies are universally recognised as being a legitimate means of expression.

In the same vein, the grounds advanced in support of the most recent detentions of Tan Hoon Cheng, Teresa Kok and Raja Petra Kamarudin leave much to be desired. The explanation that Tan Hoon Cheng was detained for her own safety was farcical. The suggestion that Teresa Kok had been inciting religious sentiments was unfounded as was evidenced by her subsequent release.

As for Raja Petra Kamarudin, the prominent critic of the government, a perusal of his writings would show that he might have been insulting of the government and certain individuals within it.

However, being critical and insulting could not in any way amount to a threat to national security. If his writings are viewed as being insulting of Islam, Muslims or the Holy Prophet, he should instead be charged under the Penal Code and not under the ISA.

In any event, he had already been charged for sedition and criminal defamation in respect of some of his statements. He had claimed trial, indicating as such his readiness and ability to defend himself. Justice would best be served by allowing him his day in court more so where, in the minds of the public, the government is in a position of conflict for having been the target of his strident criticism.

The instances cited above strongly suggest that the government is undemocratic. It is this perspective that has over the last 25 plus years led to the government seemingly arbitrarily detaining political opponents, civil society and consumer advocates, writers, businessmen, students, journalists whose crime, if it could be called that, was to have been critical of the government.

How it is these individuals can be perceived as being threats to national security is beyond my comprehension. The self-evident reality is that legitimate dissent was and is quashed through the heavy-handed use of the ISA.

There are those who support and advocate this carte-blanche reading of the ISA. They will seek to persuade you that the interests of the country demand that such power be retained, that Malaysians owe their peace and stability to laws such as the ISA. This overlooks the simple truth that Malaysians of all races cherish peace. We lived together harmoniously for the last 400 years, not because of these laws but in spite of them.

I believe the people of this country are mature and intelligent enough to distinguish actions that constitute a ‘real’ threat to the country from those that threaten political interests. Malaysians have come know that the ISA is used against political opponents and, it would seem, when the leadership is under challenge either from within the ruling party or from external elements.

Malaysians today want to see a government that is committed to the court process to determine guilt or innocence even for alleged acts of incitement of racial or religious sentiment. They are less willing to believe, as they once did, that a single individual, namely the minister of home affairs; knows best about matters of national security.

They value freedom and the protection of civil liberties and this is true of people of other nations too.

Mr Prime Minister, the results of the last general election are clear indication that the people of Malaysia are demanding a reinstatement of the rule of law. I was appointed as your, albeit short-lived, minister in charge of legal affairs and judicial reform.

In that capacity, I came to understand more keenly how many of us want reform, not for the sake of it, but for the extent to which our institutions have been undermined by events and the impact this has had on society.

With your blessing, I attempted to push for reform. High on my list of priorities was a reinstatement of the inherent right of judicial review that could be enabled through a reversion of the key constitutional provision to its form prior to the controversial amendment in 1988.

I need not remind you that that constitutional amendment was prompted by the same series of events that led not only to Operasi Lalang but the sacking of the then Lord President and two supreme court justices.

Chief amongst my concerns was the way in which the jurisdiction and the power of the courts to grant remedy against unconstitutional and arbitrary action of the executive had been removed by Parliament and the extent to which this had permitted an erosion of the civil liberties of Malaysians.

It was this constitutional amendment that paved the way for the ouster provision in the ISA that virtually immunises the minister from judicial review, a provision which exemplifies the injustice the constitutional amendment of 1988 has lent itself.

I also sought to introduce means by which steps could be taken to assist the judiciary to regain the reputation for independence and competence it once had. Unfortunately, this was viewed as undesirable by some since an independent judiciary would mean that the executive would be less ‘influential’.

I attempted to do these things and more because of the realisation that Malaysia’s democratic traditions and the rule of law are under siege. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with giving everyone an independent judiciary and the opportunity to a fair trial.

This is consistent with the universal norms of human rights as it is with the tenets of Islam, the religion of the federation. Unchecked power to detain at the whim of one man is oppressiveness at its highest. Even in Israel, a nation that is perpetually at war the power to detain is not vested in one man and detention orders require endorsement from a judge.

If there are national security considerations, then these can be approached without jettisoning the safeguards intended to protect individual citizens from being penalised wrongfully. In other jurisdictions involved in armed conflicts, trials are held in camera to allow for judicial scrutiny of evidence considered too sensitive for public disclosure so as to satisfy the ends of justice.

If this can be done in these jurisdictions, why not here where the last armed struggle we saw, the very one that precipitated the need for the ISA, came to an end in the 1980s?

Any doubts as to the continued relevance of the ISA in its present form should have been put to rest by the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) that the ISA be repealed and an anti-terror legislation suited to the times enacted in its place. Containing as it did a sunset clause in its original times, the ISA was never intended to be a permanent feature on the Malaysian legal landscape.

Through its continued use in the manner described above and in the face of public sentiment, it is only natural that the ISA has become in the mind of the people an instrument of oppression and the government is one that lends itself to oppressiveness.

Its continued use does not bode well for a society that is struggling to find its place in the global arena. It does not bode well for the democracy that is so vital for us to develop sustainably.

Mr Prime Minister, I remember very clearly what you once said; that if one has the opportunity to do what is good and right for the country, then he must take on the task. I respect you deeply for that and if I were confident that I would have been able to do some good for Malaysia, I would have remained on your team.

Sir, you are still the Prime Minister and you still have the opportunity to leave your footprint in Malaysian history. I urge you to do so by repealing the ISA once and for all.

Let us attempt to fulfil that solemn promise made by our beloved first prime minister to the people of this country.

Yours sincerely,

ZAID IBRAHIM

Kuala Lumpur

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Fund manager 'took Wall Street's largest one-day payday'


23/09/2008 - 17:42:38

The man taking multi-million euro bets against UK banks is believed to have earned the largest one-year payday in Wall Street history.

New York hedge fund manager John Paulson saw the warning signs of a troubled US housing market more than three years ago and set out to “take as much advantage” as possible.

Last year, two funds set up by his firm Paulson & Co were up $15bn, about 600%, and he entered the Forbes list of billionaires after taking an estimated $3.5bn in fees.

The US business magazine said the windfall was “believed to be (the) largest one-year payday in Wall Street history”.

In early 2007, his net worth was estimated at $300m, but last month, as the 78th richest American, his bets increased it to $4.5bn, Forbes said.

His major breakthrough came in 2005, when he was convinced the US economy would soon fail and asked his employees to find a “bubble” to short.

In mid-2006, when few people expected a crisis in the housing market, Mr Paulson believed aggressive lending was widespread and set up a hedge fund solely to bet against risky mortgages.

He took advantage of the market by finding a way to make complex debt trades pay off if mortgages lost value.

The “exuberance in the credit markets and the massive liquidity was severely mispricing these securities”, he told Pensions and Investments magazine.

While housing remained strong, Mr Paulson remained convinced of its imminent crash, despite his funds losing money, and said it was “just a matter of waiting”.

He added to his investments.

“I’ve never been involved in a trade that had such unlimited upside with a very limited downside,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

He said his former boss had told him to “watch the downside, the upside will take care of itself”.

His hedge funds bought “credit-default swaps” – designed for buyers who wanted to insure against the debt going bad – that he thought had been priced too low.

He also took “short” positions in risky “collateralised debt obligations” - repackaged mortgage securities.

So when the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the credit crunch hit, Mr Paulson saw the value of his funds soar 600%.

Born on December 14, 1955, John Alfred Paulson studied finance at New York University’s College of Business and Public Administration, where he graduated first in his class.

He went on to receive an MBA from Harvard Business School and was awarded the designation of Baker Scholar, the school’s top academic honour, for graduating in the top 5%.

He joined Bear Stearns in 1984 as a member of its mergers and acquisitions team before moving to Gruss and Co four years later.

He launched his own business in 1994.

Aware that he was benefiting from others’ misfortunes, the married father-of-two has kept a low profile, saying he was reluctant to celebrate while so many Americans faced losing their homes in the crisis.

According to the Wall Street Journal, he even used software to stop his clients forwarding his emails and spreading his tactics.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

BREAKING NEWS!!

Anwar Ibrahim's Press Conference at 14.20 Hrs.

Siaran Langsung Sidang Media Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim

Tempat : PKR HQ, Tropicana
Tarikh : 18 September 2008
Masa : 2 P.M

At the just concluded press conference the Pakatan Rakyat leader Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim said they had sent a letter to the Prime Minister Abdullah this afternoon, to request him to instruct the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat to convene an emergency sitting of Parliament on Tuesday 23 September 2008. The sitting is specifically to allow the Pakatan Rakyat to put forward a 'Motion of No Confidence' in the Prime Minister and the Government. According to Anwar, Pakatan has the majority MPs on thier side, but decline to give the numbers for security reason on members involved.


Picture courtesy of The Malaysian Insider

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

IT'S IN THE ARITHMETIC, STUPID

Malaysia Today
Posted by Super Admin
Tuesday, 02 September 2008 14:32



This is not just about kicking Barisan Nasional out. This is not just about forming a new Pakatan Rakyat federal government. This is also about maintaining the peace, stability and harmony between the many races and about denying Umno the opportunity to turn this whole thing into a race issue.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

by Raja Petra Kamarudin

Soon after the 8 March 2008 general election, Malaysia Today mooted the possibility that Pakatan Rakyat could form the new federal government if at least 30 Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament crossed over. Another idea that Malaysia Today mooted was the formation of the ‘Unity Government’ and the eventual emergence of a two-party system in Malaysia.

The two-party system was accepted with no problems but the crossovers and Unity Government proposals were whacked to kingdom come. Some even commented that I had ‘changed’ since the election and no longer speak the way I used to. They were beginning to wonder what had happened to me and whether I was suffering from ‘battle fatigue’ and should in fact take a long rest before continuing to write again.

The ‘ailment’ I was suffering from was merely a case of realpolitik or pragmatism. Let’s face it: what can Pakatan Rakyat do with a mere 82 seats in Parliament? It does not even have enough clout to stop the federal government from sabotaging the five states under Pakatan Rakyat control. And this can be done easily enough by squeezing the five states of development money (like how they did to Terengganu in 1999) whereby, come the next election, these states will fall back into Barisan Nasional’s hands (like what happened to Terengganu in 2004).

It’s all about money. If the states get squeezed of money, then the people will re-evaluate the logic of keeping these states under Pakatan Rakyat control. See what the 2009 Budget was all about. It was about pouring money into states like Sabah and Sarawak that may be the source of the crossovers. Umno knew that Sabah and Sarawak were the most possible targets of the crossovers. So they are promising billions to these two states just to ensure that they remain in Barisan Nasional.

Barisan Nasional has 140 seats in Parliament against Pakatan Rakyat’s 82 -- which is 31 for PKR, 28 for DAP and 23 for PAS. But that is for the whole country. In Peninsular Malaysia, Pakatan Rakyat has 80 seats against Barisan Nasional’s 86. Yes, that’s right. In Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional has only six seats more than Pakatan Rakyat. If just three Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament from Peninsular Malaysia cross over, Pakatan Rakyat would have 83 seats against Barisan Nasional’s 83.

The ‘main players’ in Barisan Nasional are Umno (79 seats), MCA (15 seats), MIC (3 seats) and Gerakan (2 seats). But 13 of Umno’s seats are in Sabah. Therefore, in Peninsular Malaysia, Umno has only 66 seats against MCA’s, MIC’s and Gerakan’s 20 (Total 86 for Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat’s 80).

Sabah and Sarawak are definitely the Kingmakers. And the fact that, by law, 25% of the Parliament seats must come from Sabah and Sarawak means they shall always be the Kingmakers. And this is even more so now since, in Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional’s and Pakatan Rakyat’s seats are almost split 50:50. In fact, in Peninsular Malaysia, Pakatan Rakyat garnered more votes than Barisan Nasional (51% versus 49%). Only when you add the votes from Sabah and Sarawak are the percentages reversed.

The King of Kings would be PBB, Taib Mahmud’s party in Sarawak, which has 14 seats. This is followed by Umno in Sabah, which has 13 seats. SUPP and PRS, both in Sarawak, have six seats each. UPKO in Sabah and SPDP in Sarawak have four seats each -- followed by PBS in Sabah (3 seats), SAPP in Sabah (2 seats) and PBRS and LDP, both in Sabah, with one seat each.

The bottom line is, there are 56 Parliament seats in Sabah and Sarawak. Umno controls 13 and the opposition (DAP) two. The balance 41 are controlled by the component members of Barisan Nasional East Malaysia. If you regard the 13 Umno Sabah seats as ‘component member’ seats, then the total ‘hostile’ seats in East Malaysia (within Barisan Nasional) would be 54. Add the 20 from MCA, MIC and Gerakan, then Pakatan Rakyat would now have 74 seats to fish from.

And 30 seats are all Pakatan Rakyat needs. So 74 are plenty. And that is assuming the 66 Umno seats in Peninsular Malaysia remain with Barisan Nasional and do not cross over.

But there would be a problem if none of the 79 Umno Members of Parliament cross over. Pakatan Rakyat has 43 Malay Members of Parliament opposed to 39 non-Malays. That is okay because then Umno can’t say that the non-Malays control the opposition. But if 30 non-Malay Members of Parliament cross over to Pakatan Rakyat, and they get to form the new federal government, then it would be 69 non-Malays opposed to only 43 Malays.

Herein lies the problem and that is why there is a delay in Pakatan Rakyat forming the new federal government. Anwar Ibrahim does have his 30. In fact, it is more than 30. But Anwar has to be very careful in maintaining the ‘balance’. He can’t afford to form the new federal government with 69 or more non-Malay Members of Parliament and only 43 Malays. Umno would go to town with this and it will ‘prove’ what Umno has been saying these last many months: that the non-Malays have grabbed political power and the Malays have lost political power.

Yes, this is the song Umno has been singing since the 8 March 2008 general election. Malay political power had eroded, argues Umno. And once the 30 or more non-Malay Members of Parliament cross over and Pakatan Rakyat forms the new federal government, the Malays will lose political power.

In an Umno Johor Convention a couple of months ago, they spoke about how they regret giving citizenship to the immigrants on 31 August 1957. Now that these immigrants have been granted citizenship, they have demonstrated ingratitude by voting for the opposition. These immigrants should never have been given citizenship, argued speaker after speaker. And Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah were guests of honour in this Convention.

You could see Tengku Razaleigh cringe, as if in great pain, on hearing this. He knew that Barisan Nasional suffered its most humiliating performance on 8 March 2008 because of exactly this. Such statements are not going to help. It will just make matters worse.

Umno played the race card to the hilt in the run-up to the recent general election. And it is still doing so until now, as the Umno Bukit Bendera Division Chief has shown. They still refer to Malaysian-born Chinese and Indians as immigrants. They still call the Chinese and Indians ungrateful squatters. They still ask the Chinese and Indians to go back to China and India, though all these people were born in Malaysia and not in any other country.

In a PPP Convention in Melaka, held before the 8 March 2008 general election, the Umno Vice-President and Chief Minister told the 1,000 or so Indians that Umno does not need the non-Malays. They do not even need Sabah and Sarawak, said Ali Rustam. Umno has ruled Malaysia for 50 years without the non-Malays, or the people from Sabah and Sarawak, and they can continue to do so another 50.

Ali Rustam was not asked to apologise. Neither was the Umno Bukit Bendera Umno Chief, who Abdullah Badawi said did not really mean what he said. But if I were to say something like that, the police would be in front of my house the very next day and I would be hauled into court and charged for sedition within 24 hours. That would be how swift the police would act in the event I said even 10% of what the Umno leaders say.

And this will be what will trigger the crossovers. The Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament will join Pakatan Rakyat to form the new federal government because of such talk. Umno has no respect for the non-Malays. Umno thinks all it needs to do is to bribe Sabah and Sarawak with more development funds and they will remain the loyal running dogs of Barisan Nasional. Umno knows that the Parliament seats in Peninsular Malaysia are split almost 50:50. So all they need to do is to bribe Sabah and Sarawak and the 54 seats in East Malaysia will remain in Barisan Nasional and Umno will subsequently remain in power.

Umno also knows that by just getting at least 30 Members of Parliament from Sabah and Sarawak, or even the 20 from MCA, MIC and Gerakan, to cross over is not enough. That would give Pakatan Rakyat a 43-Malay versus 69-non-Malay federal government. This will be exactly what Umno wants. Then they can play up the ‘Malays have lost political power’ race card. And then the May 13 Version 2 would become a reality.

There are many impatient people. They want Anwar to take over and form the new federal government today. They want at least 30 Members of Parliament from Sabah and Sarawak to cross over now. They want Anwar to tell Umno to go to hell. But he can’t do that. He needs Umno. Well, at least he needs some of those from Umno. He needs at least 15 to 20 Umno Members of Parliament to join another 15 to 20 non-Malay Members of Parliament to cross over so that he can form the new federal government with the right racial balance. Then Umno can’t say that the Malays have lost political power. And Umno also can’t use this to fan the sentiments of the Malays and trigger another race riot the likes of what happened on 13 May 1969.

This is not just about kicking Barisan Nasional out. This is not just about forming a new Pakatan Rakyat federal government. This is also about maintaining the peace, stability and harmony between the many races and about denying Umno the opportunity to turn this whole thing into a race issue.

And Anwar, of all people, knows this. And that is why he is taking his time about it and is covering all the bases before making his move. We want Malaysia to move forward into 2009. We do not want to return to 1969. This is the crux of the matter.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Ambiga Up To Mischief Again

Ambiga Up To Mischief Again - The Report of the Panel of the So-called Eminent Persons To Review the 1988 Judicial Crisis In Malaysia: A Pathetic Attempt At Revisionism By A Panel of Kangaroos

FUTURE FASTFORWARD
Matthias Chang
Sunday, 31 August 2008 05:58


Introduction

When I first read the report on page 22 of the New Straits Times on the 30th August 2008, with the face of Ambiga prominently displayed in the accompanying picture, my first reaction was, when will this woman stop making a fool of herself and her stupid theatrics!

I called a former President of the Bar Council and enquired whether he was aware of such a panel to review into the so-called judicial crisis. He replied that he came to know about the report just as I did, in the newspaper. Next, I called another senior member of the Bar who had intimate knowledge of the issues pertaining to the Tribunal and his response was the same – from reading the newspaper. He had no prior knowledge!

I stand to be corrected, but I am sure that the majority of the lawyers in Malaysia are unaware of this Panel of Eminent Persons.

Why the secrecy?

There seems to be a trend in organizing surprises.

First there was the dinner organized by the Bar Council, but paid for by the government. Not all lawyers were invited to the event. It was a pathetic attempt to boost Badawi’s image by the payment of some monies to the judges found guilty of misconduct. Zaid Ibrahim, the de facto Law Minister responsible for orchestrating the event with Ambiga, was found guilty of corruption (“Money Politics”) when contesting for a post in the ruling party. This first effort at revisionism backfired!

Just a few weeks ago, the War Criminal Blair was invited to speak on the Rule of Law by the University of Malaya as the guest speaker for the Sultan Azlan Shah Lectures. But surprisingly, the invitation cards, unlike previous years made no mention that the mass murderer was the guest speaker. Again, the conspirators were plotting in secret.

Now, we discover that the so-called eminent persons were appointed in 2007 unknown to the vast majority of the members of the Malaysian Bar. Why the secrecy? It is apparent that the Report was a rush job to achieve a certain agenda within a certain time-table. If the report was published as a diversion for Badawi after the humiliating defeat by the Opposition in the recently concluded by-election of Permatang Pauh, it will be a futile effort. The deep-seated anger against the Badawi regime is such that no amount of diversion will dampen the spirit of the rakyat against a corrupt regime.

Like The Thief In The Night

Before I proceed in exposing the sinister designs of this so-called Panel of Eminent Persons, I would like to issue a challenge to Mr. Verma to a public debate. In the event of his refusal, I will only be too happy to debate with Ambiga and her side-kicks in this sordid affair – Mah Weng Kwai, Richard Yeoh and Haji Sulaiman Abdullah – to a public debate entitled:

“Is the deliberation of the so-called Panel of Eminent Persons transparent and in accordance with the Rules of Natural Justice?”

They have a week to respond, and if they fail to do so, I shall call them hypocrites and cowards, and unfit to discharge their duties respectively as President, Malaysian Bar, President, Lawasia, Executive Director, Transparency International (Malaysia) and Representative, International Bar Association.

Why do I say that the conduct of the members of the panel is like the thief in the night in pursuit of a sinister venture?

Consider the following:

1) The Two Tribunals which investigated into the misconduct of Tun Salleh and five other judges were sanctioned by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong in accordance with the Constitution and had the requisite jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate on the issues before them.

2) Tun Salleh and his Counsels refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, one that was sanctioned by the Agong whom Tun Salleh professed his loyalty and obedience. The rationale for writing the offensive letter to the Agong was that he was appointed by the Agong. Yet, he refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the said tribunal.

In contrast:

1) As stated in page 3 of the Report, and following a lengthy Preamble,

“It is now decided that the Malaysian Bar Council, the International Bar Association, Lawasia and Transparency International-Malaysia do establish a Panel of Eminent Persons (the “Panel”) to study, investigate, review and report on:

a. the events leading up to and surrounding the appointment of the 1st and 2nd Tribunals;
b. the composition and deliberations of the 1st and 2nd Tribunals;
c. the findings of the 1st and 2nd Tribunals;
d. the effect that these events have had on the administration of justice in Malaysia; and
e. any other matters related or incidental to the above.”

It is so typical of Ambiga and her side-kicks that they have the audacity to arrogate to themselves the authority to challenge the findings of Tribunals duly authorized and convened pursuant to our Constitution and in full conformity with the request of the Agong who demanded that Tun Salleh be removed for misconduct!

Ambiga may suffer under the grand illusion that she, as President of the Malaysian Bar, is the Almighty but ordinary folks applying common sense know better and will see her for what she is – a mouth-piece for the Badawi regime.

It goes without saying that the members of the Panel suffer from the same disease of misplaced arrogance and conceit.

Mr. J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India, is a disgrace to his profession for he was part of the political and judicial system that continue to oppress 90% of the population of India, the landless peasants who continue to live in squalor on less than US$1 a day.

The two Pakistani members of the Panel likewise have no standing whatsoever as they have condoned a political system in their country which is no more than a surrogate for the United States imperial agenda. Their country is a bloody mess and it would serve humanity better if they devote more efforts in liberating their fellow countrymen and women from the clutches of the US-financed fascist regime!

In so far as Gordon Hughes is concerned, when he has exhausted his efforts in bringing the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard to the International Criminal Court to answer for war crimes charges, then and only then may he be considered worthy to adjudicate on other legal matters.

I have no wish to comment on the Malaysian members of the Panel. Suffice to say, they played no part at the material time when Tun Salleh was justly and correctly removed from office for gross judicial misconduct. They are now the champions for Tun Salleh. How convenient! Ambiga at the material was neither seen nor heard in the defence of Tun Salleh, if she was minded to do so.

These are the so-called “eminent persons” (two former Judges and four lawyers who are hardly known internationally) appointed by Ambiga to review the findings of the constitutionally appointed tribunals and duly sanctioned by the Agong. Ambiga must have been scrapping the bottom of the barrel!

Yet, they have the audacity to question the composition of the members of the two tribunals comprising of eminent judges. In the circumstances, I challenge the hypocrite Ambiga to name the judges of the two tribunals which in her conceited view, are incompetent to adjudicate on the issues before them and as authorized by the Agong in accordance with the express provisions of the Constitution.

The Panel held three meetings, one on the 21st-22nd September 2007 to finalise the Terms of Reference, the second on the 11th-12th April 2008 wherein “issues were discussed threadbare and relevant material scrutinized” and the third was to “finalise, sign and present” the report to the Joint Committee.

Arrogating power unto themselves, these “eminent persons” deliberated in secret, away from the glare of public scrutiny. Two days were sufficient to discuss the issues and relevant material.

This is transparency by the lofty standards of Transparency International!

This is in conformity with the Rules of Natural Justice by the standards of the Bar Council, Lawasia and the International Bar Association!

The Singular Failure Sufficient to Destroy the Validity of the Report

The members of the panel are lawyers by profession. One would expect that at the minimum, they would pretend to behave as one, for justice must not be only done, but seen to be done.

There are five Terms of Reference as stated in page 3 of the Report.

I need only draw the public’s attention to the Fourth Term of Reference to demolish the entire Report of the Panel and expose their dastardly deeds as a shameful attempt to subvert the findings of the two lawfully constituted tribunals which found Tun Salleh and two other judges guilty of judicial misconduct.

The Fourth Term of Reference provides:

“To adopt all necessary measures, including interviewing witnesses and other relevant persons, examining documents and seeking further information for the purposes of arriving at a proper conclusion.”

I have read the report several times, and I have yet to come across a page of the report where there are references to witnesses’ testimony.

The report contains several assumptions but no mention is made as to how these assumptions were made, whether from witnesses’ testimony or otherwise. Anyone reading the report would have no clue as to who assisted in the investigation and or the gathering of “further information”.

In fact, a large portion of the report seems to me to be a regurgitation of the self-serving book “May Day for Justice” written by Tun Salleh. Be that as it may, and if the Panel is indeed as TRANSPARENT as Transparency International projects itself to be, may we have answers to the following queries:

1) Were witnesses called to testify before the Panel?

2) If there were none, why not?

3) If yes, who were the witnesses?

4) Specifically, did Tun Salleh and or Datuk George Seah testify before the Panel?

5) Specifically, did Raja Aziz Addruse and or Param Cumarasamy testify before the Panel?

6) What further information and or materials were sought in relation to the review of the findings of the two tribunals?

7) Was the report drafted collectively by the members of the Panel?

8) If yes, who was the member who had the main responsibility for the first draft report?

9) Were any lawyers, not members of the Panel involved in the drafting of the report?

10) What was the basis for the finding in paragraph 2.5 of the report wherein it is stated: “It appears that this decision may have angered Dr. Mahathir …” Did the panel seek the views of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad when preparing the report? If not, why not? Why did they rely merely on a news report?

11) What was the basis for stating in paragraph 2.6 that “the remarks very likely were not well received by the executive”? Who in the executive were they referring to?

12) In paragraph 2.35, is the Panel accusing the Agong of mala fides?

13) Who provided the finance and amenities for the members of the Panel and were these finances duly authorized?

I have at least another 100 questions. But it will suffice for the Panel to answer the above questions.

If the above queries are sufficient to indicate that the Panel was conducting its proceedings in contravention of its own terms of reference, and rushing to submit the report to the Joint Committee before the 20th Anniversary (see paragraph 1.2 of the Introduction to the report at page 4) then my case is established that the Panel is nothing but a Kangaroo Court, convened by Ambiga and her side-kicks to serve the political agenda of the Badawi regime.

Additionally, in paragraphs 2.50 to 2.52, the Panel expressly acknowledged that pursuant to the advice of the Conference of Rulers, Tun Salleh had in fact agreed to apologise to the Agong for his misconduct, and did proceed to meet the Agong in Johor on the 27th June 1988. However, the Agong refused to accept the apology and maintained his demand that the Tribunal proceed to investigate into the matter.

The fact that Tun Salleh was willing to apologise is sufficient to dispose and bury forever the misplaced notion that Tun Salleh was innocent of the charges!

Food For Thought

Why would Ambiga, who is a vociferous opponent of the Shariah law and who has forcefully denied the reality that for all intent and purposes Malaysia is an Islamic state (inter-alia by reason that Malaysia is a member of the O.I.C.), support Tun Salleh at this juncture when as Lord President, Tun Salleh had confessed in a speech that while our civil law is based on English Common Law, he said that:

“In this situation, not only is the judiciary bound by Islamic law as propounded by jurisconsult (Muftis who give legal rulings on particular matters), but Parliament and the Executive too are certainly bound by these rulings …”

No responsible government can allow the postulation of such views by the Head of the Judiciary without causing fear and consternation among its non-Muslim population. This was in fact one of the charges against Tun Salleh for which Tun Salleh has refused to rebut.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I have no objections to Shariah law, if that is the wish of the people, but for Ambiga to conduct and portray herself in the way that she has been doing is sheer hypocrisy!

Ambiga is up to mischief again!