No one is suggesting not to be contructive after all, what else can be done now? What needs to be constructive is, after the SCC is passed then, what? There is only one choice, to highlight the key things that the SCC failures and keep pointing it out, providing a sore point so that it does not become a farce too often (and if it does, point it out) and that change is positive in the future.

If the SCC cannot be independent, what we need to make sure is that it can be independent in the future.

If the SCC cannot be investigate with power, then we need to make sure they can in the future.

If the SCC cannot punish corruption, then we need to make sure it can in the future.

If the bill does not have provision that will allow all these to happen now, then we need to make sure that at some point it can be amended to be so. How? Demand transparency of the SCC, i.e., that is accountable to the people that lodges complain and public, they can protect witness, they can protect accusers, that they cannot punish those who stand up etc.

But when someone tells me that the original purpose is to have external oversight, then, INDEPENDENCE comes into mind. Having 4 out of 7 decision makers being NOT independent makes a mockery of the purpose of having this external oversight in the first place.

I don’t disagree with accepting something that works 50% of the time, vs nothing. I agree that if we don’t get what we want, it’s usually not the end of the world. But this is still not yet law, and the Opposition is right to voice out the ideal position. It’s their job. And why purposely design something defective, and then waste time, money, resources to correct it later. Why not get it right the first time? Is it so hard to insist on having independence? Why not get it right the first time, so that everyone can move on to the next big thing. I mean, Malaysia is not exactly a problem free country right? And Malaysia is not exactly a first world country yet too right?

Also, simplistically, which is in the best interest of the public? An independent or a non-independent Commission?

As such, I lean towards Kit, that this is a fraudulent IPCMC, and should be changed so that the majority are independent members. If the government insist in having the PM, IGP, Director General ACA, Director General PCB, as members, then, increase the total members from 7 to 9, so that the majority is still independent.

I agree one needs to be constructive at all times in this sort of things.

Old Observer.

We should all engage the government and especially the MPs on making the SCC more effective and giving it more teeth.

The only point that I don’t agree is his conclusion – that IPCMC is the “last line to be drawn”. This suggests to me make or break and if cannot make, the situation is hopeless, lets forget about everything. I don’t believe in drawing last line but fighting for a shifting line, to inch the overall position forward, if necesary, we would take a step backwards to pave the way for two steps forward.

I have evaluated the pros and cons of IPCMC and SCC in earlier posting. I am not sure we should force the IPCMC issue. I can understand Pak Lah’s position that he cannot just dismiss PDRM’s objections and afford to alienate it especially in light of “the political dynamics” part raised by Bigjoe.

Lets us be realistic, civil society and Opposition have no power whether by persuasion, ballot box, or street protests (Hindraf) force the government’s hand to do so (adopt IPCMC) even if we can all agree here that the IPCMC in its pristine form proposed by Dzaiddin will be most effective to clean up the police force.

I have no illusion at all about the SCC – that it is in part a BN’s effort to appease public outrage at the endemic and prevalent abuse of power not because it embraces accountability and governance per se especially when the uncontrolled pursuit of such values detracts its image and power but the fact that having such a body can be used by the BN to get public to help bring to the fore abuses of power for the BN to do something about it (in a way it is prepared to do subject to certian limits) so that the BN will not be thrown out of power by an abusive and down right uncontrolled and “runaway” public delivery system esp the enforcement agencies at the forefront of such abuses.

So it comes out with this new creature, Special Complaints Commission which is a body with (Inquisitorial + Investigative – Prosecutorial Powers) by which the Executive is, as ever, on top of things controlling (a) the composition of SCC and hence its decision whether to really get to the bottom of a specific complaint and thereafter make recommendation to the Public Services Commissions, and (b) Public Services Commissions, another tier that, if the government so will, can sit on a SCC’s recommendation and do nothing, making the whole external oversight function of SCC a sandiwara and charade.

So what? Notwithstanding these limitations, the SCC is still a kind of ombudsmen that supposedly has oversight functions not only in respect to the police force like IPCMC but all other enforcement agencies that our country is having for the first time.

It is a legislated ombudsmen institution, my friends, and no matter how sandiwara you think it is, it still represents a step forward in development of institutions here! You take the other institution – Human Rights Commission, Suhakam – it is definitely not as effective as it should be but dare anyone here say that, on balance, we’re better off without it?

My position is that we should not just reject the SCC outright and say since we cannot get IPCMC, end of story lah!

The Bill on SCC is still in 1st reading stage and as it goes through the various stages before becoming law Sdr LKS is right to stimulate public debate and criticisms by NGOs and civil society on the bill.

I say the debate should weigh in favour of being constructive – to see where and how we can iron out the rucks in the fabric of the SCC’s mechanism to advance the Common Cause of Accountability and Governance and not take an intransigent and recalcitrant approach and stance of telling the government that – “you either give me the IPCMC or everything thing else you dish out like the SCC is rubbish, not deserving of consideration or mutual negotiation and accommodation, and you can just keep the sandiwara up, we’re not interested in anything other than the IPCMC”!

I believe that with such ombudsmen mechanism, we can still leverage public attention and opinion on complaints brought to and proceedings conducted by SCC in service of the Common Cause.

The extreme actions and then subsequent web of lies against Hindraf, the appointment of Zaki as heir-to-CJ, the also-fallen short RCI, and now this. All this point to a complete reversal of a promised reform program.

Why is this important more accurately for who? For non-bumis in this country, I put it to you that things will never be better for them than under this PM. Given the precedent set by this PM, if you look at the bench, no one will pick up the torch of reform much further than this PM. No one will ever get the kind of popularity this PM enjoyed in 2004 and despite the fact this PM will still win the next election comfortably even a likely 2/3 majority, he broke new grounds in lying and betraying the minorities in this country. No one else, after betraying the people that trusted him, still will reach out to them as PM is trying to do although a meager attempt. Have no one noticed that only the PM is the only one giving an olive branch out to Hindraf within top UMNO leadership?

I put you the future is bleak for non-bumis and this PM is responsible for it because he squandered the opportunity and we squandered it too. Without at least a real institutional reform now of one of some branch of government (enforcement, judicial the most likely choices) and the executive is last place, there is no hope of real reform in the near future, not enough to eventually lead to the end of NEP. At least not peacefully. Because there is only one other real option and that is a severe, castrotrophic event that can change it - either a severe recession or riots on the streets. That is harder to predict and as much as one admire their tenacity, the chances of Hindraf radicalizing is slim.

I also do not put much stock to hope of the liberal Malay as led by Anwar to push the reform agenda at least not for non-bumis. Even if you put aside that Anwar cannot get into power with Keadilan, in the end Anwar is in it for his power and his promise of equality is not going to be real even if they do get into power. He can however officially end the NEP to be replaced by something else less evil but in the end, hoping for Anwar for non-bumis is worst than hoping for Badawi. In these recent event, Anwar has proven how unreliable he has been in not being at the forefront of supporting Hindraf and using them more for his own political ends.

And the truth is despite the new breath of life into Keadlian recently, it will not get far enough to change the political dynamics of which UMNO dominates. In fact, its likely to get worst as Keadilan gain a bit more influence as new generation of leaders has less options to control their Malay electorate. As I said, if Badawi cannot do it this time, those that come after him can do even less.

Hence Sdr. Lim is right, this bill is important not just because of the immediate need of police reform but reform of the government and politics in this country. It is literally the last line to be drawn in this battle for a long time to come..