False IPCMC Bill (SCC Bill) – Emergency Public Consultation in KL on Monday

I am convening an emergency public consultation in Kuala Lumpur on Monday night on the stand that Members of Parliament should take on the fraudulent Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Bill (IPCMC) which will be debated in Parliament on Tuesday or Wednesday – the last day of the 46-day sitting of the current parliamentary meeting.

I regret that time is so short with only two days to convene such a public consultation when there should be a series of such public consultations in various parts of the country in view of the importance of the proposed legislation based on the most important recommendation of the Royal Police Commission to create an efficient, incorruptible, accountable, professional world-class police service with three core functions – to keep crime low, to eradicate corruption in the police and to protect human rights.

The Special Complaints Commission (SCC) Bill was tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Thursday and will be debated for passage on Tuesday or Wednesday before the adjournment of Parliament until next March.

The SCC Bill admitted in its explanatory statement that its genesis came from the IPCMC proposal – “This Bill is introduced as a result of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police and it is intended to cover not only the police officers but also all enforcement officers at the Federal level.”

Most unfortunately however, the SCC is a completely different animal from the one conceived and recommended by the Royal Police Commission – in fact it makes a total mockery of the IPCMC proposal as to warrant the SCC Bill to be billed as a fraudulent IPCMC Bill.

The whole raison d’etre for the IPCMC proposal, the most important of its 125 recommendations for police reform, was spelt out by the Royal Police Commission in Chapter 6 its Report on “Modernise the Role, Functions and Organisations of the Royal Malaysia Police” (p. 189), viz:

“One effective means of ensuring that doctrines, laws, rules and procedures are observed and implemented is by the establishment of an external oversight body. This method has been adopted by many modern policing systems whose experience has been that internal mechanisms alone are inadequate, unreliable and frequently ineffective. Police culture is often inward-looking and closed and mindsets are usually resistant to change. Changes in leadership can also lead to changes in commitment to service excellence, discipline and performance. Society cannot therefore rely on internal mechanisms alone to ensure PDRM effectively implements and abides by rules and regulations. The establishment of an external oversight agency for PDRM would be a profoundly important development in the governance of this important organization. It will mark a quantum step forward in enhancing accountability and help restore and sustain the confidence of the people and the private sector in PDRM.”

The SCC Bill however has made complete nonsense of the Royal Police Commission’s proposal for an independent external oversight mechanism by proposing that one of the three permanent members of the SCC should be none other than the Inspector-General of Police – when the Royal Police Commission had gone out of the way to specifically propose that no serving or former members of the police force should be appointed Commissioners of IPCMC!

Whether the Royal Police Commission’s idea and proposal for an independent external oversight mechanism to curb police abuses and misconduct should be expanded to include all other national enforcement agencies is a matter for debate but what is unacceptable and most objectionable is the corruption of the concept of an independent oversight commission by the inclusion of the Inspector-General of Police as one of the permanent Commissioners.

With the IGP as a permanent commissioner, all notions of “independent, external oversight mechanism” are repudiated and rejected – why it is no exaggeration to describe the SCC Bill as a fraudulent IPCMC Bill.

Two other major subversions of the IPCMC proposal of the Royal Police Commission are:

• Removal and omission of “corruption” of police force from the ambit and terms of reference of the SCC, completely contrary to the intentions of the Royal Police Commission which had highlighted the function to “prevent, detect and investigate corruption and other serious misconduct in PDRM” as a major challenge of IPCMC.

• Limiting the SCC to the passive role to receive and investigate complaints of misconduct, in contrast to the “activist” role of the IPCMC to “initiate an investigation of its own even without receipt of a complaint”.

It is ridiculous and outrageous that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz should dismiss with contempt the critics of the SCC Bill as “ignoramuses“ who did not fully understand how the country’s law enforcement and legal system worked.

Nazri rubbished claims that the SCC was a watered-down version of the IPCMC as proposed by the Royal Police Commission in 2005.

Nazri has given another example of speaking before thinking. He does not seem to realize that he has in one fell swoop, dismissed Malaysians who had reached the pinnacle of their respective profession or vocation, like Tun Dzaiddin who was former Chief Justice and Tun Hanif Omar who was the country’s longest-serving Inspector-General of Police, as “:ignoramuses” of the country’s enforcement and legal system.

One can disagree as to whether Dzaiddin and Hanif are the nation’s best Chief Justice or IGP respectively, but to castigate them as “ignoramuses” are serious reflections on the de facto Minister and the entire history and system of governance in Malaysia.

In this case, it is Nazri who is more of an “ignoramus” than Dzaiddin, as the former Chief Justice is clearly right when he expressed his deep disappointment at the SCC Bill “as something entirely different from what we recommended”. Surely Dzaiddin is the most qualified person to make such a statement and Nazri is no position whatsoever to contract Dzaiddin on the matter.

Nazri also defended the exclusion of corruption allegations from the terms of reference of the SCC on the ground that any wrongdoing which had an element of corruption would be dealt with by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

If so, why then is the Director-General of the ACA another permanent Commissioner of the SCC – to ensure that corruption allegations are not dealt with in any manner by the SCC?

The Emergency Public Consultation on what stand MPs should take on the fraudulent IPCMC Bill when it comes up for debate on Tuesday or Wednesday will be held at the KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Auditorium on Monday, 17th December 2007 at 7.30 pm.

All the 16 Commissioners of the Royal Police Commission, including the Chairman Dzaiddin and Deputy Chairman Hanif, are invited to the public consultation. This open invitation also goes out to all professional bodies and NGOs like the Bar Council, Suaram, Hakam and all Malaysians and NGIs – individuals deeply concerned about issue of IPCMC and the creation of a world-class professional police service in Malaysia.

As time is so short, whether in inviting speakers or participants, I hope that this media conference announcing the emergency public consultation will serve as an invitation to all concerned Malaysians to come together on Monday night to give public feedback to MPs as to what stand they should take on the fraudulent SCC Bill.

This invitation is also extended to all MPs and political parties – and I will personally invite Nazri to the public consultation when I meet him in Parliament on Monday.

Those who are interested in the Emergency Public Consultation can also liaise with the DAP MPs in the Federal Territory, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (Kepong), Fong Kui Lun (Bukit Bintang), Tan Kok Wai (Cheras), Teresa Kok (Seputeh) or with Lau Weng San – 016 3231563 or DAP officials in Federal Territory/Selangor.

  1. #1 by k1980 on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 2:43 pm

    The Role, Functions and Organisations of the Royal Malaysia Police have already been modernised by the PM, that is, the police no longer go after thieves, murderers and crooks, but instead arrest all those who do not support umno and the nep

  2. #2 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 3:07 pm

    Its quite obvious they are trying to rush this through without much debate. Is there an equivalent of filibuster in our Parliament?

  3. #3 by boh-liao on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 3:23 pm

    This development is not surprising, as Umno and BN are experts at changing and sugar-coating things.

    In fact, they may even turn around and say that they are generous, accommodating, and democratic, since in reality they can OK anything they want in the parliament, even without discussion, since they have >2/3 majority and are supported by the elegantly silent majority in Malaysia.

    Democrary in action, how sweet!

  4. #4 by pwcheng on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 4:12 pm

    We are in a very difficult crossroad in his country for the past twenty over years. Whatever is good for he rakyat but an impediment for UMNO to rule with an iron hand and plunder, will be heavily watered down.
    There is no way we can change this as the alligator had grown into a dinosaur. Their strategy of divide and rule is working well for them and they will never accept any changes irrespective of how good it is for he country or the people. If you appeal they will call you communist as what had happened to the SUQUI and if you take it to an international referendum after exhausting all your appeals, they will call you terrorist as what is happening to HIndraf.
    It is time that all loving Malaysian citizens who can see through the antics of UMNO must unite wholeheartedly to think of a strategy to defeat them before the country goes to the dogs. This corruptible will ravaged the country until it runs dry. The opposition must tone down on religion (and let UMNO shoot themselves in their feet when they play up religious issues), but delve hard on the pressing needs and concern of the people who other than food and water needs some level of comfort and good education. There must be zero tolerance for UMNO and its cronies for any corruptible activities.

  5. #5 by Libra2 on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 4:15 pm

    The whole ration d’etre ……

    Kit, it should read as raison d’etre

    [Corrected. Thanks Libra, most appreciated. – Kit]

  6. #6 by kanthanboy on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 4:32 pm

    “…I hope that this media conference announcing the emergency public consultation will serve as an invitation to all concerned Malaysians to come together on Monday night to give public feedback to MPs as to what stand they should take on the fraudulent SCC Bill…” LKS

    YB Lim, I applaud your effort in discharging your responsibility as the Opposition Leader in convening this public consultation forum. However, I can guarantee that all the invertebrate MP from BN will not give a damn to any public feedback. It is naive to expect even one of these invertebrate MPs from BN to stand up against any evil legislation.

    There is nothing “Special” in this SCC bill except it should read as “Stupid Complaints Commission” bill. It is like a complaints commission setup by Hitler to investigate the brutality of the Nazi.

  7. #7 by Libra2 on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 5:00 pm

    Don’t hope for any BN Mps to criticise the Bill. They will call it a godsend and praise it as the next thing after the creation of the earth.
    BN Mps don’t care a damn what their voters think. They vote with the leadership. Those fools who voted for them deserve what you chose.
    The Indians have been supporting all these years despite all these marginalization. Why? They voted for the empty promises, with hope and expectation – but none came.
    Will they be cheated again with the goodies/promises that will go their way come next elections.

  8. #8 by HJ Angus on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 5:05 pm

    After more than 2 years of secrecy the government wants to rush through this bill that is so different from the IPCMC.

    I think the public should be given the chance to give feedback to the MPs.
    Remember the ISA laws? They were passed and now we have a form of terror imposed by the state.


  9. #9 by Not spoon fed on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 6:16 pm

    What is lack here to make things move in a just way is spiritual prayers in physical realm as there is spiritual realm.

    If you could not move things in this physical realm, you have no choice but to engage in a group prayer to seek help from the mighty God. In spiritual realm. you ask the mighty God to be fair, just and upkeep justice.

    Why? This is because human is consisted of spirit, soul and body.

    Curse is the opposite of prayers which is equally powerful. But be careful to engage in spiritual warfare because war is still a war, hurt would be there.

    Peaceful group prayer is stil the best – ask for justice from the mighty God.

  10. #10 by HJ Angus on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 6:32 pm

    The people appointed to sit in the SCC could well be the ones being complained about – so the SCC is already dead in the water.

    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.


  11. #11 by izrafeil on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 6:54 pm

    Has anyone read Teresa Kok’s recent posting, on why would PDRM needs 23 helis (i guess they anticipate more peaceful demos), and why on earth they need RM400mm per annum for maintenance?!!!

  12. #12 by jus legitimum on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 7:32 pm

    All the right thinking people should stand united and fight the gigantic devil that looms over the whole nation.This devil is the mother of corruption,power abuse,racism,greed,hypocrisy,cheat,racial supremacy,religious bigotry etc.We should uphold the belief that the good will eventually triumph over the evil.

  13. #13 by shaolin on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 7:38 pm

    IPCMC Bill WILL easily be passed by no brain groups of
    MPs from UMNOputras as they have 2/3 majority!!

    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…!!

  14. #14 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 8:48 pm

    Shame? I just could not contain myself when the PM said on the news that he symphatize with the family of the 31 Hindraf arrested and asked the AG to expedite their case.

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

  15. #15 by vehir on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 9:51 pm

    Deputy Information minister told in the news today regarding Americans involvement about Hindraf issues.

    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.

  16. #16 by sean on Saturday, 15 December 2007 - 10:13 pm

    Aren’t there any right minded MP’S from BN ever stand up now to make what is right before things get out of control forever.It funny..maybe all of them think it is just another Bill etc.But the one that are gonna suffer in time to come are the people and that includes friends and relatives of all MP’s that are sitting in Parliament.Don’t they ever learned?

  17. #17 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 2:17 am

    I have not read the Special Complaints Commission (SCC) Bill so my impressions are subject to the caveat that they are based on only secondary sources reported in media.

    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.

  18. #18 by sheriff singh on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 3:36 am

    Well we are well known for fake products like fake watches, fake hair, fake DVDs etc.

    A fake IPCMC is just another fake product.

    Where are the two sniffer dogs when you need them?

  19. #19 by kanthanboy on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 8:12 am

    Where are the two sniffer dogs when you need them?

    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.

  20. #20 by Bigjoe on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 9:13 am

    After more thought, I believe Sdr. Lim is rightly correct in being alarmed about the death of the original IPCMC. It’s clear to me now this may be the last hope of actually what we now know as the reverse of the PM reform’s agenda i.e., that the hope of reform as promised in 2004 is dead and will be for a long time to come.

    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..

  21. #21 by sj on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 10:19 am

    It is just depressing isnt it?

  22. #22 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 11:02 am

    There is much truth in all that Bigjoe commented : that the present PM is constrained by “political dynamics”, that the next will achieve no better, the chances of Hindraf being is slim, his skepticism of putting stock on liberal Malay politician including DSAI, and the bleak conditions all around.

    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.

  23. #23 by HJ Angus on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 11:18 am

    I agree with Jeffrey’s views.

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

  24. #24 by boh-liao on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 2:50 pm

    Do we have faith and trust on BN MPs? How many of them ever opened their mouths and spoke sensibly on behalf of their constitutents?

  25. #25 by Old.observer on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 9:00 pm

    I am not a lawyer, and I have no detailed understanding on how this Bill came about.

    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.

  26. #26 by Old.observer on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 9:02 pm

    After all, wasn’t it Nazri himself who said that our country is not short of talents? :-)

  27. #27 by Bigjoe on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:05 am

    Firstly, why is there a delusion that the SCC will not pass and likely to be mainly as is?

    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.

You must be logged in to post a comment.