Is Datuk Seri Najib Razak the Prime Minister of a two-headed government – whose Prime Minister wants Malaysia to be the world’s “best democracy” but whose Attorney-General’s recent sedition spree of selective and malicious prosecutions aims to make Malaysia the world’s “worst democracy”.

This question automatically arises from the parliamentary answer today on the recent sedition blitz by the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who asked the Prime Minister whether the government’s use of the law against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, activists and intellectuals was in line with the prime minister’s commitment to make Malaysia more democratic.

Answering during Parliament’s Question Time, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri defended the spate of sedition prosecutions, claiming that the Malaysian government practises and upholds the doctrine of the separation of powers and as such the government does not interfere in the Attorney-General’s Chambers affairs.

Nancy is very mixed-up as she has made a fatal error about the doctrine of separation of powers, as the Attorney-General is part of the executive and not the judiciary in the doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.
The doctrine of separation of powers is totally irrelevant and does not apply in the blitzkrieg of sedition prosecutions – which is an executive action and not an action of the judiciary.

Although Article 145(3) of the Malaysian Constitution vests in the Attorney-General the sole discretionary power “to institute, continue or discontinue any proceedings for any offence”, the AG’s prosecution decisions are actions of the Executive and not of the Judiciary, which means the Prime Minister must assume full responsibilities for the AG’s decision and cannot disclaim responsibility on the ground of the doctrine of separation of powers.

It is completely unthinkable in any parliamentary democracy that the Attorney-General could give the country a bad international reputation by launching a dragnet of selective and malicious prosecutions under a repressive colonial law like the Sedition Act, and the Prime Minister can fold his arms to disclaim responsibility on the ground that he is not responsible for the actions of the AG on the ground that this is a judicial and not an executive exercise of power.

A responsible Prime Minister would have reined in the Attorney-General and end the spate of sedition prosecutions, especially when they are completely at odds with his mandate to make Malaysia the world’s “best democracy” and are selective and malicious as being aimed at opposition leaders, critics and activists, or alternatively, sack the incumbent and appoint a new Attorney-General.

Why is Najib allowing the Attorney-General to make mince-meat of his pledge to make Malaysia the world’s best democracy with his spate of sedition prosecutions – unless the Prime Minister has given secret authorisation to the AG but dare not openly admit responsibility?

In her reply, Nancy also claimed that the government does not practise favouritism in taking action against anyone found guilty of committing sedition.

There is not only a long list of cases to prove Nancy wrong, and substantiate the sad state of affairs where the administration of justice in Malaysia has gone very awry not only with the selective and malicious prosecution under the Sedition Act but also selective and malicious investigation by the Police under the same Act.

The latest instance happened only today.

Last Sunday, the UMNO mouthpiece, Mingguan Malaysia front-paged and headlined the proposal by a junior Umno leader that the UMNO general assembly next month should debate whether the Chinese vernacular schools should be abolished on the baseless and spurious ground that it had been used by the opposition to breed racial and anti-government sentiments.

Junior MCA, Gerakan and SUPP leaders reacted by calling for the junior UMNO leader to be charged for sedition, but the police today said that they will not investigate the junior UMNO leader for sedition over his suggestion that the Chinese vernacular system be abolished.

Although MCA Youth had even lodged a police report, the Malay Mail Online quoted the Sepang police chief Supt Mohd Yusoff Awang as saying that the case has been categorised as a civil matter after police investigations.

Isn’t this the latest example that the police had been guilty of selective and malicious investigation (or lack of investigation) on sedition cases, apart from the selective and malicious prosecution by the Attorney-General’s Chamber?

Dare the MCA, Gerakan and SUPP Ministers protest at such double standards by the police and the Attorney-General’s chambers in their administration of justice in the next Cabinet meeting and to demand for a halt of the sedition dragnet, with the dropping of all sedition charges?