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..

Does AAB own any sniff dog?
You can spot his running dogs everywhere. Many are stationed in the Dewan Rakyat, Bukit Aman, ACA, AG office, every level of courts and all type of commissions. They are mostly brown, yellow or black skin and a few are of hybrid. They can be easily identified because they all wear mouth guards and very capable in echoing the barking of their handlers. They were adopted from dog organizations with the abbreviation of UMNO, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, SUPP and a junior one from PPP.

A fake IPCMC is just another fake product.

Where are the two sniffer dogs when you need them?

I agree with critics that SCC is a different animal or alien from that of the Independent Police Complaints And Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). However, I don’t feel that great a disappointment, all things considered, if SCC is further refined.

The IPCMC was conceived at the time of great outrage of police abuse of power and corruption in the wake of the Nudegate and Botak Gate revelations.

IPCMC is supposed to be an independent, external oversight body, whose principal function is to receive and investigate complaints about the PDRM and its personnel and if necessary, take direct legal proceedings in court against the errant police officer. It has an inquisitorial, investigative and prosecutorial role. There is no doubt that although one could file a complaint against an errant police officer to SCC, it would not be as effective as the IPCMC to rein in police misconduct and sweep it clean – because the SCC, whilst having inquisitorial and investigative functions, has however not the prosecutorial role!

The SCC has, however, compensations. Its inquisitorial and investigative roles are extended wider – not just covering the police but other enforcement agencies like Immigration, Customs and maybe more.

In short, the SCC will serve the role of a kind of ombudsmen – watch dog for not only one police agency but foir all other enforcement agencies as well. The idea of having an ombudsman for several enforcement agencies and not just the police department is welcome. In fact, such an institution would be the next step after IPCMC but now that it is brought forward, jumping ahead of IPCMC, I am not complaining if its search light sweeps a wider area than just the dark musky corner iof the police department.

It is also understandable from government’s perspective. We all know corruption and abuse of power are bane of all enforcement agencies and departments, so how is the government going to explain why it selectively agrees to IPCMC that isolates only one section of its employees – the police – for special redemption?

I feel the force of Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s argument that the police should not be made to feel that it is “the only agency on the receiving end of public complaints”.

Besides PDRM’s other objections have some force in law. One example: the IPCMC’s direct prosecutorial and disciplinary powers over police overlap with, and may render redundant those that are already vested by the Federal Constitution (Part X) with the Police Force Commissions (“PFC”) headed by Minister -in- charge of the Police. Each of these commissions is already empowered by the constitution to adjudicate disciplinary offences and impose punishments, including dismissal, on those found guilty in accordance with the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 2002. For the IPCMC to take direct disciplinary action would tantamount to usurping the powers and authority of the Public Service Commissions established under the Federal Constitution (Part X), the supreme law of the country.

Another complication is that it is odd that where the IPCMC has no power to hire, it is however endowed with the right to fire, which is contrary to normal employment norm and law.

I am also not too alarmed, per se, that the word “corruption” has been deleted under the proposed SCC amendment and substituted by misconduct of an enforcement officer.

“Misconduct” has been defined in the SCC’s draft as “any abuse of power, any non-compliance with any law or any commission of any offence under any written law”.

As corruption is an offence under the Anti Corruption Act, corruption is necessarily by definition a part of misconduct dealt with by the SCC.

I am therefore Ok so far with the SCC in lieu of IPCMC except for 2 principal reservations – the second being the more crucial one – that I hope YB Kit will address.

The first reservation is the efficacy of such a body like SCC, which unlike the original IPCMC, has no direct prosecutorial role ie no teeth that bites. [I won’t repeat the parts earlier discussed of how the IPCMC’s prosecutorial role if extended to the SCC will equally not be acceptable to the government backed by its counter- argument that it would usurp the role of various Public Service Commissions established under the Federal Constitution (Part X)].

Our consolation here is that if the SCC has no prosecutorial role, at least it has full powers to investigate complaints and recommend its findings to the various Public Service Commissions for disciplinary action. For so long as the hearings and findings of the SCC are public, we still have the advantage of media or at least alternative on-line media attention of what is going on to exert public pressure for action to be taken.

Now this is better than if we don’t even have a SCC to play the ombudsmen role!

The key here is whether the SCC will be bona fide and investigate impartially and thoroughly.

This is where the crux of the major second reservation comes in concerning the composition of members of the SCC – the same problem we face in relation to members appointed to the Royal Commission on the Lingam Video Clip.

According to Nazri Aziz, the commission will consist of seven members comprising a chairman appointed by the prime minister, the inspector-general of police, the director-general of the Public Complaints Bureau, the director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency and three others.

A majority of 4 out of 7 are beholden to the government for their exalted positions. How can they inspire public confidence that they will play their tribunal role independently of Executive’s influence and interference to (say) down play and kill any specific complaint embarrassing to the government?

Also there is problem of conflict of interest. PDRM and ACA are also enforcement agencies whose errant officers may be investigated by this SCC upon public complaint. Will there be a thorough and impartial investigation if their heads are also sitting members of the SCC who do not recluse themselves?

In my opinion, this is where the main shortcoming of the SCC lies, which should be plugged.

What I heard him saying was that Hindraf was given some place for them to hold their gatherings.

Whats this remarks? Absurd. Can the Deputy Minister of information show prove that such letters was issued to Hindra?

Our government was telling lies to fellow Malaysians. Now they have started telling lies to the world leaders.

Dont ever think our Malaysians have no ears to listen and no brains to think wisely. This kind of stories can be believed about 5 years ago.

Malaysians irespect of race have wanted a change of the BN government. The Malays are also marginalised. Last year I was watching the UMNO live telecast in its last day of the assembly.
One gentlemen came on the stage and said that when the governments gives the benefits to the Ketua Bahagian that funds which is to be distributed to the respective branches never reaches. Some where in between the funds are hijacked.

The BN government marginalised the various ethnic groups in Malaysia. Now employers also marginalise their workers. If their superior/manager belongs to a certain ethic group then that ethnic group will not worker efficiently. The other ethinic group workers have to work under pressure to finish their portion of work.
This is how employers marginalise their emplyees. The superiors representing an organisation whether banks, corporate companies are doing this. The Indians are finally marginalised in this sector. They dont get bonus to their expectation even though they are suppose to receive it. But better and higher incentives are given to those who never perform and are always missing from the department such as banks.

It occured to me the analogy of this is sexual in nature but lets not sink as low as them shall we?

Modernise the role, function and organization of PDRM
to arrest more innocent peace-loving people in the
peaceful walk like lawyers from Bar Council… and put
all of them behind bar under ISA…!!

It is easy to do that, no trials and straight away detain
minimum for 2 years in the detention camp!!

Malaysia critsizes so much of inhuman act and brutality of
Burmese government and its Human Rights… how about
looking into our own mirror first before passing the comments
of others’ wrong doing…!!

Shame on You, Malaysia!! 5 ‘Nelson Mandela’ is in the
making…under ISA…!!

It will not go very far an may just be a delaying mechanism.
Better if they had set up an Ombudsman with adequate powers to bring recalictrant departments to court.

http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2007/12/worse-than-terrorism.html