The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail should drop the charge of “attempted murder” against the “Batu Caves 31” and abandon the manhunt to charge at least another 30 on the same count as it will result in a new crisis of confidence in the administration of justice over selective and malicious prosecution in the abuse of the Attorney-General’s discretionary prosecution powers.
It is most outrageous and a blot in the Malaysian administration of justice that the Shah Alam Sessions Court could be so harsh, excessive and unconscionable as to accede to the Attorney-General’s outrageous demand to deny bail to the 31 persons charged with the ridiculous offence of attempted murder of a policeman and to send them to Sungai Buloh Prison in the past four days since Thursday.
Sixteen of these 31 had been earlier charged in the Selayang session’s court with being at an illegal assembly in front of Sri Subramaniam Temple at Batu Caves between 1 am and 8 am on Nov. 25, and released on a court bail of RM1,000 each.
They were free for only three days as they were re-arrested for the capital offence of among 31 for the attempted murder of a cop, for which they were not allowed bail and sent to Sungai Buloh Prison pending trail, which could see them being imprisoned for months on end although their guilt has not been established and have their innocence proved at the end of the trial.
In upholding the Attorney-General’s unreasonable demand that the 31 be denied bail, Shah Alam sessions judge Azimah Omar said she had considered the severity of the offences and the issue of national security in the ruling. She said that the participants in a large unlawful gathering had put the public and national interest at stake, not that of any particular ethnicity, religion or race.
As these 16 persons had been released on bail for three days before re-arrest for the capital offence of “attempted murder”, were there any evidence in those three days of freedom to show that these 16 people were grave threats to national security as to justify their being treated as hard-core anti-national elements?
Did the Session Court judge acted rightly, fairly and judiciously in exercising her discretion to accede to the Attorney-General’s demand to deny the 31 bail, despite the clear evidence of the medical and other problems faced by the accused?
What is even more shocking is the disclosure by Gani Patail at the Shah Alam Session Court last Thursday for a manhunt for at least another 30 to be charged with attempted murder.
To charge 31 persons for the attempted murder of a policeman injured in the fracas at the Batu Caves on Nov. 25 is already outrageous and mind- boggling enough – but clearly, the Attorney-General is determined to set a new mind-boggling record of outrage in wanting to prosecute over 61 persons for the attempted murder of one cop in one fracas in Batu Caves with the manhunt.
The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is well-advised to caution the Attorney-General of the far-reaching consequences of provoking a new crisis of confidence in the administration of justice through flagrant abuse of the Attorney-General’s absolute discretion in prosecution with blatant instances of selective and malicious prosecution.
For the best part of the past decade, the crisis of confidence in the administration of justice had been confined to the judiciary’s failure in independence and integrity – with the country spared of the earlier crisis of confidence over the Attorney-General’s abuse of his discretionary powers through blatant selective and malicious prosecution.
Is Malaysia going to see a return of the double-barrelled crisis of confidence in the administration of justice – not only over the lack of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary but also in the blatant abuse of discretionary powers of prosecution of the Attorney-General?
(Media Conference Statement 2 at the DAP Ipoh Timur/Batu Gajah foodfair at Tou Boo Kong Temple, Ipoh on Sunday, 9th December 2007 at 11 am)
#1 by Jong on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 12:31 pm
raven77,
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is the worst performing PM in nation’s history. There’s no doubt he is indeed a political liability for BN especially so, UMNO. Rightly UMNO should take the initiative to remove him but ferocious upper-deck power jostling(Najib, Krishamuddin, now SIL who seeks FIL protection), prevents moderates and right thinking politicians, the likes of Zaid Ibrahim, Sharil Samad etc from reaching the top.
#2 by limkamput on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 12:44 pm
oknyua, appreciate we share many common views. It is about time oppositions harbour ambition that someday they too could be in power and put forth their policy and agenda. It is relatively easy to oppose and criticise. It is much more difficult to come up with viable alternatives that are able command the confidence of the majority of the people. It is about time – PAS, DAP and PKR. It is about time you people dilute a little of your unimportant things and concentrate more on the fundamental things. To PAS, let me tell you this. It is difficult for you to continue talking about God if the country is poor and destitute. To PKR, you must genuinely show your sincerity in multi-racial Malaysia. Your present support for non Malays should never be a stepping stone toward Ketuanan Melayu again. To DAP, what can I say other than making sure your agenda is not subtly captured by Chinese chauvinists. And one more thing, please don’t shout too much in Parliament. You people should talk and not shout. If BN MPs shout, let them be, they are not your teachers.
#3 by k1980 on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 1:31 pm
Why weren’t these jokers below arrested for protesting and demonstrating in the streets?
http://bp3.blogger.com/_KUD2BqHya4M/R1yYwwOeS9I/AAAAAAAAGFA/xsC8szuVtp0/s1600-h/his13.jpg
http://bp3.blogger.com/_KUD2BqHya4M/R1yYwwOeS-I/AAAAAAAAGFI/EhIVJ2fADs0/s1600-h/Protest_against_Malayan_Union.jpg
http://bp3.blogger.com/_KUD2BqHya4M/R1yYwwOeS_I/AAAAAAAAGFQ/_msRwtr77Mo/s1600-h/pkmmmalayanunion.jpg
#4 by undergrad2 on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 2:05 pm
“If we allow unfettered freedom on religions, it could also lead to trouble in the sense that some religions in the name of freedom would start to encroach reasonably on other religions…†limkamput
Isn’t your argument all too familiar? Does that not put us on the proverbial slippery slope where we find ourselves today?
The problem with our Constitution is that it is not supreme – Parliament is. I took a leaf out of the U.S. Constitution so freedom enthusiasts among us would take the lead. It is good that you did. Only Tolstoyists would search for a single key that would solve all our problems. I have long ceased to be one.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution starts with the words, “The Congress shall make no law….†Isn’t it odd that the constitution of the world’s greatest democracy should commence with words “shall make no law†? Isn’t Congress after all the highest law making body in the land?
Our Constitution has been amended some 600 times (and counting). It can no longer be regarded as a sacred document by any stretch of the imagination. The U.S. Constitution is a sacred document in the true sense of the word ‘sacred’. It has been amended 26 times since Congress made that First Amendment in 1791. Needless to say our Constitution having been amended 600 plus times since 1957 is anything but sacred.
Liberal progressives among us would argue that freedom when qualified is no freedom at all. Doing so has made our Parliament supreme rather than our Constitution. Article 10 of our Constitution is heavily qualified by Clauses 2), 3), and 4). How do you think they were able to pass the controversial Sec. 27 of the Police Act? Not to mention other suppressive legislation like the ISA especially Sec. 73 and the EO and Sections 113, 115 of the CPC to mention but a few. How do you think they were able to introduce a double tracked system of justice – one based on the English common law and the other on syariah – when the original Constitution envisaged none?
You mention religion. The root of many of the nation’s problems today has to do with the official role given to religion (read: Islam). Religion shouldn’t have or be give any role in politics especially in a country like Malaysia – a country which started off essentially as a country of minorities. Recognizing the central position played by religion in the life of the Malays, someone must have thought that political independence would not be possible in 1957 without giving Islam its special status. It was to be a constitutional monarchy with Malay Rulers taking turns to be King ( a unique system comparable to none) and what better way to recognize Malay customs and the Muslim religion. Articles like Art. 3 and Art. 11 bestow special status on Islam and Muslims.
The spirit of the Constitution being both secular and religious is condemned to a life of uneasy existence.
Will there be an end to conflicts between the religious and the secular? No. Because almost the entire constitution will have to be re-written. In the meantime we will just have to find ways to solve each crisis as it comes – and that depends substantially on the political ideology of the political party that runs the government of the day. That in turn depends on the aspirations of its people. The sooner we consider ourselves Malaysians rather than Malay, Chinese and Indians the faster we would get to come to terms with ourselves and reality.
#5 by k1980 on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 3:02 pm
And now the real fear of Indians dumping the MIC for the Opposition
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Monday/National/2105683/Article/index_html
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has urged the Indian community to stand behind the MIC in its time of need…
#6 by limkamput on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 4:38 pm
In the US (I am not sure, so I am just asking and bringing this up for discussion) can the Congress amend the First Amendment to the Constitution that “The Congress shall make no law….†If so, am I right in saying that the Congress is still supreme? The reason why successive US governments hold their Constitution sacred, to me, is because there are sufficient checks and balance on the government. It is not absolute freedom that guarantees freedom. It is “circumscribed†government that ensures that the people have enduring freedom. If the government can do as they please, then in no time the freedom in whatever ways we guarantee will be eroded as seen in many countries.
As for Malaysia, because of different races and religions (as you rightly said we are in fact a nation of minority, at least until recently), I may go along with you that perhaps it is good that some of the provisions are put beyond the reach of the government. Our constitution does provide some safeguards. However, because of the lack of checks and balance, governance and transparency (boil down to same issue again), constituencies are drawn and redrawn in such a way that BN could gather more than two-third majority without much difficulty and the constitution was then amended without impunity.
I am so afraid others may accuse me for being an irritant or for trying to destabilise the blog again, so I shall stop here on this topic. Of course we may debate on other topics in the future.
#7 by Jong on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 4:43 pm
NOW is the opportune time for Indian Malaysians and members to jump ship and bury MIC forever and join DAP or PKR. See how desperate Nazri/umno is?
#8 by oknyua on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 5:08 pm
LImkamput, may I suggest that you ignore the negative comments because there are others that appreciate your your straight talk. Personally I can agree with what you said. Don’t tell me you and I are the only odd ones here!
#9 by undergrad2 on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 8:33 pm
“It is not absolute freedom that guarantees freedom. It is “circumscribed†government that ensures that the people have enduring freedom.†Limkamput
I don’t think there is any need to enter into any philosophical argument about “freedomâ€. Suffice it to say that such questions belong not to the area of constitutional law but rather to political science and the works of philosophers like John Jacques Rousseau best known for his “Social Contractâ€.
The United States today is a melting pot of cultures, language and religion. No one is seeking to impose their religion, culture and language on the other. There is a right to bear arms and yet you don’t see people running around amok killing one another. The separation of church and state ensures that religion has no role in the political life of this nation.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution starts with “Congress shall make no law respecting …(religion and the free exercise thereof, freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people to peaceably to assemble).†Article1 vests all legislative powers in Congress and Congress shall propose amendments “whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessaryâ€. Congress passed the First Amendment about a decade or so later respective religion, freedom of speech and assembly and it reads “shall make no laws…â€.
The issue of whether our Parliament or the Federal Constitution of 1957 is supreme is more relevant and is less clear because of the 2/3 control of the House and with the Senate presently being nothing more than a rubber stamp, an argument can validly be put forward that it is Parliament (read: BN) that is supreme. Does not 600 plus amendments over some fifty years mean anything? Shouldn’t the Constitution be supreme? It is an issue students of Malaysian constitutional law would love to debate – until the cows come home, of course.
Your reference to the work of the EC or other organs of the government is not so much about the lack of check and balances and the doctrine of separation of powers as it is about the non-adherence to the doctrine of civil service neutrality. After some five decades how many of us are able to draw the line between government and the political party that runs it?
#10 by DarkHorse on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 9:07 pm
oknyua,
Don’t “de-stabilize†somebody who is genetically prone to be an irritant to borrow Jong’s term when describing him. You can see he is struggling not to be an irritant – as some would say, not to be“a pain in the rear endâ€. Credit must go to he who makes an effort at rehabilitating himself.
#11 by Jong on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 9:20 pm
Did someone just mentioned my name?
#12 by Jong on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 9:24 pm
Congrats limkamput, you’re doing pretty well I must say. We are all not so bad afterall eh?!
#13 by limkamput on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 9:41 pm
Jong, i was not refering to you when the word irritant was used although you have used it on me before. I know your intention was good.
oknyua, thanks for the support.
Undergrad2, I think it is enough for now. Happy holiday to you too.
#14 by Jong on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 9:46 pm
Why are you running away when we are beginning to be smittened by your new style of writing, the effort you are putting in etc etc? :) :D
#15 by DarkHorse on Monday, 10 December 2007 - 10:43 pm
“Did someone just mention my name?” JONG
The guy needs to go on R&R after all the bruises he got from being recalcitrant. Ooops! Mahathir might just appear to also ask who called him!
#16 by ktteokt on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 - 9:33 am
We call the Malaysian Police “PDRM – Polis Di Raja Malaysia” and not “PKM” – Polis Kabinet Malaysia. So why is the police siding the cabinet instead of looking after the interests of the Monarch?