Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz should not try to shut up members of the Royal Police Commission by arm-twisting them into silence and obedience about their unhappiness that their key proposal for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMCP) has completely changed character in the Special Complaints Commission (SCC) Bill.
New Straits Times on Friday reported the great disappointment of three members of the Royal Police Commission at the SCC Bill as “as something entirely different from what we recommended”.
The three members are firstly the Royal Police Commission Chairman, Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and members Tunku Aziz and Lee Lam Thye.
Dzaiddin said he was “very disappointed” as the SSB was not what the Royal Police Commission had asked for, adding: “The government, in its wisdom, did not accept the core recommendation of an independent oversight body.”
Tunku Aziz said: “The whole purpose was to ensure that not only were the police protected against unfair criticism and allegations but also that there would be a return of public confidence in an organization that had lost it. If the new bill is watered down, obviously we are not going to achieve this purpose.”
Lee Lam Thye said: “The IPCMC was meant to be an independent body to deal with police misconduct, abuse of power and corruption. I did not expect it to be watered down. At this point, it would be best to leave it to parliament, with the hope that proper debate and discussion will be carried out. MPs need to be aware of the original objective. My fear is that the new bill may not serve its purpose.”
Nazri hit the top with these comments, responding pointedly by telling Sin Chew Daily that Dzaiddin and Lam Thye would not be considered for appointment as Commissioners of the SCC since they disagree with its establishment. Nazri said the country has ample talents from whom to select the SCC commissioners.
This is in poor taste. Nazri’s reaction is uncalled-for, making him look very petty and vindictive in resorting to arm-twisting the Royal Police Commissioners to shut them up from airing their true feelings about the SCC Bill which is meant to implement their IPCMC proposal.
I urge Royal Police Commissioners not to be cowed or frightened by Nazri from giving their responses and to attend the Emergency Public Consultation on the SCC Bill at the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall auditorium tomorrow, Monday, 17th December at 7.30 pm on the stand MPs should take when the Bill comes up for debate in Parliament on Tuesday or Wednesday.
So far Tunku Aziz, Royal Police Commission member and former President of Transparency International Malaysia, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Malek Imtiaz, President of Hakam, Ragunath Kesavan Vice President Bar Council have confirmed attendance as panelists at the Emergency Public Consultation on SCC Bill. Others are being contacted.
In the shortn time available, I have not been able to speak to many members of the Royal Police Commission and wish to reiterate the standing open invitation to them as well as all other interested NGOs and NGIs to the Emergency Public Consultation on the SCC Bill to give direct input for parliamentary debate and decision on this important parliamentary business .
#1 by Tulip Crescent on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 2:37 pm
As usual, Malaysians ask for chocolates and are given lollies.
And they are expected to forget about the original request for chocolates as they suck the lollies.
#2 by Libra2 on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 3:18 pm
Abdullah is the most despicable PM, this country has ever had. Because is he is very antithesis of his own proclamations!
He breaks his own promises with impunity and lies without twitching his eyes.
He sermonizes from the pulpit about the virtues of good governance and trumpets religious injunctions to boot.
No PM since, the Tengku had deceived his people with so many empty promises.
The last he said of the IPCMC was that the AG was looking into some legal aspects of the recommendation. He never said it was being modified to appease the PDRM chieftains. Suddenly emerges a new unheard of animal from space.
The very purpose of setting up the Police Royal Commission, according to him when he became PM, was arrest the rot in PDRM.
Till today PDRM is still at ground zero. Not an iota of improvement is visible.
He spoke about fighting corruption but he himself is guilty of it. (The RM 600million to UMNO divisions and the abuse of his RM 200m jet).
He spoke of media freedom and every single journalist and radio DJs work in fear that they could be sacked at the tinge of support for alternative views.
He lamented that we had first class infrastructure but third class mentality. Ironically, he him self projects a fourth class mentality.
#3 by Sitiawan on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 3:59 pm
This country is heading DOOM and GLOOM.
I pray for a MIRACLE.
#4 by verbal-lash on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 3:59 pm
Somebody should tell this Nazri to shut his STUPID GOB!! Whoever put this brainless lump of impunity into his current place of power must be just as brainless! Let us the rakyat not do anything so brainless in the next election and put some wisdom into our votes – for once to think with our brains and not with our buttocks!!
#5 by lbn on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 5:56 pm
Our present gomen is definitely beyond any hope of good governance. If they’re serious they would not come up with all types of excuses with all the recent happenings. We’re now in the information age. There’s no borders for information. Gomen, not everyone is stupid. For those who haven’t register as voters, do so NOW! Make sure all our friends now. Let’s be proactive and do something. A single vote counts.
#6 by mata_kucing on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 5:56 pm
Don’t take Nazri too seriously if you want to remain sane. This self-appointed clown has become such a sick joke. If he’s not a minister, he’d be considered a fairly good stand-up pub comedian, what with all the craps coming out of him. He’s so thick that he seems to believe in his own lies.
#7 by gofortruth on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 6:52 pm
Independent Judiciary + Independent AG + Independent ACA + Independent Police = more than half of BN MPs behind bars.
That’s the real reason why so much effort is put by the gomen to ensure ‘un’independence”.
#8 by harrisonbinhansome on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 7:20 pm
That’s the promptest respond by Kit and others to have an open debate about the negativity of the selection of the SCC. If the IGP is
the chieftain of the SCC, I think it would be “better” that all criminals booked have thier statements taken by thier siblings and be adjudicated not by a judge but by thier own mother.
Shoot the Bill down Kit. I really hope other MPs will support you on this unless they have collusion with the police.
like Libra spoke of the PM, I think he has shown his true colour.
#9 by Old.observer on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 8:05 pm
The whole point is to have a Complaint Commission that is INDEPENDENT from the Police & government.
If the Commission is NOT independent, then, what’s the point? It will simply be another layer of beaurocracy that the public will see as forgone conclusion – the Commission has already sided with the powers to be even before the first complaints received. Might as well have nothing, and save Rakyat’s monies. What a truly silly thing!
Nazri would be hugely mistaken if he thinks the more intelligent public cannot see through his comments.
As he continues to make his silly comments, we should continue to spread the word outside the Internet of his silliness.
Old Observer.
#10 by Cinapek on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 8:30 pm
“Nazri has bad taste”
That must be the understatement of the year. He exist solely for the purpose of doing AAB’s dirty work in as uncouth and uncultured manner as possible.
The fact that the Govt had dragged the IPCMC issue for years has shown the hypocrisy of AAB’s double talk and now he insults us further with this SCC rubbish which is just the same old rubbish with a new coat of paint and another layer of delays. And all this took the AG nearly two years to propose? Sheesh!! This administration is the pits…
#11 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 9:24 pm
“Dzaiddin and Lam Thye would not be considered for appointment as Commissioners of the SCC since they disagree with its establishment†– Datuk Nazri Aziz.
This is a strange remark. There is no evidence that either Dzaiddin or Lam Thye is hard-up to be appointed to Special Complaints Commission (SCC).
I have a cursory glance at the Special Complaints Bill 2007 relating to this SCC posted on the this link :
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,1413/Itemid,1/mode,view/
It seems to me that the SCC is designed to play: –
(a) a bridging or conduit role between for a complainant of misconduct referring his complaint, if preliminarily ascertained by the SCC to have some merits, to the relevant Disciplinary Authority or Enforcement Agency for action. (‘Enforcement Agency’ is not just PDRM but “any Federal or statutory body responsible for enforcement of laws relating to prevention, detection and investigation of any offence†and Disciplinary Authority means the various public services commission mandated by Constitution that customarily investigates and disciplines public servants).
(b) There’s some degree (but not really that much) of oversight limited to keeping the relevant Disciplinary Authority/Enforcement Agency monitored as to whether it is itself taking action and investigating the matter referred to it by the SCC, requesting an explanation on progress or why matters are not moving, and keeping the complainant posted of developments. If things are not moving, the SCC may direct its task force (s27) to investigate deeper and submit the findings to the Disciplinary Authority if it’s a case of misconduct or to the Public Prosecutor, if its an offence under criminal law.
It is like as if the SCC is designed to help the Disciplinary Authority, Enforcement Agency and the Public Prosecutor do their respective work but if they don’t do their work, that’s the end of the matter, the SC can’t do anything – unless the PM steps in.
The SCC actually could be a source of information, ‘eyes and ears’ for the PM of what the public service people are doing – just like via the FIC/EPU, he could monitor and control the pulse of the economic players.
Most legislations vest powers to relevant minister in charge but this one vests everything in the PM including the appointment of Commission members. No need advice from Ruler, Civil Society or anybody! Indeed for the first 2 years of the Act, the PM could himself modify the provisions of the Act as he deems expedient to “remove difficulties†or “anomalies†in the Act or of its implementation (S50) without referring to Parliament.
The SCC is a watchdog for the PM, if he bothers, through which mechanism he would know who in the Enforcement Agency has been complained against by the public and for what and whether there is merit in the complaint. Through this information he could go over to the other side to also monitor whether officers in the Disciplinary Authority or Public Prosecutor are responding to the complaint and give such directives as may be necessary.
But who’s the watchdog for this SCC? Except for the PM, no one!
For all members of the SCC and people/consultants working for SCC are sworn and bound to secrecy both during or after their service with SCC – s 42(a).
Under 42(b) no other person (including journalist or any whistleblower) who has, by any means access to any information or documents relating to the SCC’s affairs shall disclose such information or else they go to jail for up to max 2 years.
This effectively means that if the SCC plays down and bury its investigations on any sensitive matter or if the SCC stumbles unto any abuse of power that it does not want to be leaked to the public, no one will know – unless the whistleblower braves the punishment under the Act and discloses it, and runs to the court for protection. Now he may get it if there’s a Whistleblower Protection Act, but not otherwise. Even then, what is gain against such risk when it is well nigh possible that the court will not receive as admissible such infotrmation because the Special Complaints Bill 2007 relating to this SCC specifically provides that such information is secret just like that covered under the Official Secrets Act!
If one looks back at the IPCMC, it is evident that by purpose and powers it is a completely different animal, more like a tiger compared to the hyena (SCC) about which the only thing in common is that both may have stripes. :)
#12 by Rocky on Sunday, 16 December 2007 - 10:50 pm
Nazri is a fool.Just ignore him cos as jeffrey said no one is asking to be on SCC.
The no go on IPCMC is a great disappointment.Pak Lah lied.
#13 by pwcheng on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 12:08 am
It is like as if the SCC is designed to help the Disciplinary Authority, Enforcement Agency and the Public Prosecutor do their respective work but if they don’t do their work, that’s the end of the matter, the SC can’t do anything – unless the PM steps in (as according to Jeffery).
After all the trouble , it is back to square one. That is the “efficacy” of the gomen. We will all go mad if we do not march on the street.
#14 by lakshy on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 5:02 am
YB,
You should personally invite Dzaiddin and Lee Lam Thye to attend. What the heck, invite AG and Nazri to attend too!
#15 by DarkHorse on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 6:43 am
The IPCCM, the SCC (not to be mixed up with SPCA) and the Lingam Tape panel all arrived dead in the water.
They are not serious about anything that threatens to change the status quo. These proposals have all been victims of partisan politics.
The last hope is usually in the power of the ballot box (never power that comes at the end of the barrel of the gun). But alas the ballot box has been rigged even before the election is announced.
In desperation some of us look at “people power” – but then people are now divided. Thanks to HINDRAF moderate thinking Malaysians of all races have been hindered in their quest for an alternative government.
The cry of “Come to momma” by UMNO leaders rings loud and clear to the Malays whose sense of security has been violated by HINDRAF and their now detained leaders.
#16 by greenacre on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:32 am
The way forward is to take the Bull By the Horns. In a flat world more need to be done to remain mean and trim.
Talking about police I have nothing good to say about them but on a personal level can state this ‘they are rotten to core’ not base on hearsay but first hand experience. I made a police report about an accident(luckily it was not murder?) on which I found the other party lying through the teeth. Thus a second report was made which a sensible police would have acted but ours didn’t. So I made a third report on the first report and the second report. Subsequently I even made a personal visit and met the OCPD no less sho stated “we don’t monkey business in our station”
The monkey business still not dealt with. Where to?
#17 by greenacre on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:37 am
correction….we don’t do monkey business’
#18 by Jeffrey on Monday, 17 December 2007 - 9:38 am
“You should personally invite Dzaiddin and Lee Lam Thye to attend. What the heck, invite AG and Nazri to attend too!†– Lakshi.
Supposing Dzaiddin represents Civil Society, and Nazri, the government, here’s how the imaginary debate between them will proceed – leading to a stalemate!
Dzaiddin : The SCC is not just a “watered down†version but a different animal from IPCMC. The original pledge was to establish IPCMC to improve oversight, governance and rid corruption/abuse of power by PDRM. The pledge is not honoured.
Nazri: Whereas IPCMC addresses the specific problem relating to PDRM, SCC addresses oversight and governance over not just PDRM but all other relevant enforcement agencies, hence rakyat not shortchanged but got a beter deal.
Dzaiddin: What’s the point of oversight over all agencies when oversight is mere ‘token’ when SCC, unlike IPCMC, has no prosecutorial power? At least IPCMC with prosecutorial power could clean up and restore confidence in one important enforcement agency, PDRM and produce concrete results before proceeding to deal with other enforcement agencies in same way. One bird in hand better than 2 or 3 in the Bush.
Nazri: We can’t take such a stand. PDRM should not be made to feel specially targeted over other enforcement agencies since complaints of abuse of power are common to all others as well. We cannot alienate PDRM whose good will is important for cooperation with Rakyat without which the fight against crime will not be effective. (Thinking but not saying, “also not to mention that PDRM is vanguard to protect our political position as well”). If you want to change an organisation of over 100,000, it takes time, don’t ruffle the feathers within by threatening it with an external oversight watch dog, but slowly by giving better pay, inculcating better values, shipping/transferring out and retiring the black sheep.
Nazri: What’s so great about an oversight body having additional prosecutorial power? Don’t we have the various existing Public Service Commissions existing to discipline errant officers for misconduct, and for something more serious the AG/Public prosecutor to whom SCC can refer the complaint and investigations findings?
Nazri: You guys apparently are ‘ignoramus’ of law or its workings.
You can’t expect SCC to play quasi judicial role to make findings on a misconduct case and prosecute on these and yet expect Public Service Commissions/AG/Public prosecutor to do exactly the same thing at same time : there will be chaos when SCC arrives at different conclusions from Public Service Commissions/AG/Public prosecutor. Whose decision should prevail? Logically, it should be Public Service Commissions/AG/Public prosecutor which should have exclusive prosecutorial powers since their “prosecutorial role†is mandated by supreme law, the Federal Constitution as compared to SCC by a mere subordinate law enacted by parliament.
Dzaiddin: If the Public Service Commissions/AG/Public prosecutor had been effective in the first place, would there have been a need for Commission of Enquiry recommending the IPCMC of which the PM accepted the proposal?
Nazri: The IPCMC proposal arose at the time of great public outrage from the NudeGate/BotakGate abuses, a legacy of previous administration. Now is different. The present admin evinces a will to combat the abuses not just in PDRM but all other agencies as well. That’s a bigger step towards Governance & Accountability. We know we’ll be done for if public delivery continues its descent. That’s why we’re amenable in principle to IPCMC but you can’t hold the PM to establish it in its original form when after further deliberations, insuperable practical and constitutional considerations require its form to be modified to SCC. Here we have demarcated functions. SCC has investigative/inquisitorial powers; it submits its findings of misconduct to relevant agencies, and if they don’t take action on findings, government will direct Public Service Commissions/AG/Public prosecutor to do so. So what’s the problem?
Dzaiddin : You ask us to trust the government to have political will to so direct? If there were public confidence of such a will, there won’t be a need for an external oversight body like IPCMC to be mooted. When Govt conceded to IPCMC the premise is that it acknowledged that public confidence was wanting in respect of this political will, and needed to be restored by an oversight body independent of the Executive.
Dzaiddin: And how can such a body be independent of the Executive when all SCC commissioners are appointed by PM and majority of 4 out of 7 are top government servants are civil servants creating perception of conflicts of interest when complaints appertain to officers within their respective departments?
Dzaiddin: The SCC buttresses the PM’s powers and will work only if the PM himself is not constrained by power brokers and is able to use this body to really exercise effective oversight over the various enforcement agencies. We rather not rely alone on capability of individual person, prime minister notwithstanding, because if he were subject to pressures to overlook misconduct of a particular officer, then for his political survival, this oversight function will not be exercised. We feel comfortable with an institution structured in a manner that appoints a fair share of persons who are fair-minded and not beholden to the Executive.
Dzaiddin: There’s another reason why it takes more for public confidence to be restored. Why the draconian provisions requiring secrecy on deliberations by the SCC where commissioners cannot disclose any of it during and after tenure of service? Even outsiders getting hold of information cannot disclose it? Is it not like Official Secrets Act that could be used as cloak to camouflage wrong doings? Who is independent who can exercise oversight over this SCC? Like the Royal Commission on Lingam’s video clip, the perennial problem unresolved is who will be independent watchdog over another watchdog ???? It goes to motives. Without resolving this dilemma, the question of restoring public confidence will always not be answered satisfactorily.
Nazri: You can’t expect Enforcement officers reputation to be tarnished by disclosure everytime a complaint is lodged and investigated. Be fair. Also the government will not countenance loss of control over any of these bodies.
Dzaiddin: That’s the problem.
Nazri : Our justification for control is that we have support of silent majority : our domination of the Dewan Rakyat and Negara is testimony of that.
Dzaiddin : If that’s the rationale, why bother to say you’re committed to governance and accountability ?
Nazri : Hey the SCC is a big concession from us and it is better than nothing for you.
#19 by EARNEST on Thursday, 20 December 2007 - 10:36 pm
Jeffrey,
It is like for real. Some talent scouts may spot you soon to do scripts for blockbuster movies. Well done.