Memali - a democracy in rubbles

“In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organised robbery?”: Saint Agustine

Date: November 1985.

Place: Malaysia.

The Prime Minister was Mahathir Mohamad. Musa Hitam was the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister.

Malaysia was going through a bad recession. The price of its 2 main natural resources, tin and rubber, was at rock bottom. The Mahathir-induced “look east policy” was not working to Malaysia’s advantage. All it managed to do was to invite Japanese and South Korean contractors to undertake massive development works such as the then ground breaking Dayabumi project. Little else was being achieved from the policy apart from the mushrooming of Japanese restaurants around town. “Privatisation” and “sogo sosha” were the in-words at this time. On the other hand, the policy only managed to isolate Malaysia from its customary ally, the Great Britain and consequently, the United States.

Economically, Malaysia was struggling. Nothing was happening. Graduates, local and from abroad, were finding it hard to find jobs. In order to help the graduates, a “graduates scheme” was implemented where graduates were assigned jobs as clerks and junior executives in the civil service and government agencies circa 1986. Things were bleak.

Mahathir Mohamad had managed to consolidate his power base by winning the general election in 1982 after a “power transition” - which UMNO is so well known for – from Tun Hussein Onn. He appointed Musa Hitam as Deputy Prime Minister, a pairing that was so glorified as the “MM” leadership. Both of them were even presented with a motor bike each bearing registration number MM 1 and MM 2 respectively. It looked like a pairing made in heaven. Although history would later show that Mahathir Mohamad’s political marriages would never stand the test of time, for various reasons which could only best be described as Mahathir-esque.

Elsewhere, something earth shaking and of more sinister nature, was brewing. In 1979, the Shah of Iran left Iran under cover of darkness leaving Shapour Bakhtiar, his Prime Minister, to fend off the Islamic fundamentalist with the help of the Supreme Army Councils. The exiled Ayatollah Khomeini - whose preaching and sermons were smuggled into Iran in cassettes tapes – came back to Iran on February 1 1979. On April Fool’s day that year, after a referendum in which only one choice was offered - Islamic Republic: yes or no – saw a landslide vote for the Islamic Republic, Khomeini declared Iran as an Islamic Republic with a brand new constitution. The Iranian Revolution was thus complete.

Nobody in Malaysia - not even Mahathir Mohamad - gave 2 sens to the Iranian Revolution and the effect it would have on the world in general and on Malaysia specifically. The truth was that the Iranian Revolution would be the catalyst for Islamist revivalism all around the world. Soon, its effect swept throughout the world, the wind of Islamist revivalism sweeping east through India, Afghanistan going downwards towards Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. To the west, it blew through Turkey, Europe and crossed the big pond to the United States of America without even being noticed nor realised.

In Malaysia, the Islamist revivalism saw the Islamist party, PAS, going on a fundamentalist rampage throughout Malaysia. This coincided with the return to Malaysia of firebrand such as Ustaz Abdul Hadi Awang, who would soon climb PAS’ power hierarchy on fundamentalist ticket. In the early 80s, PAS, taking advantage of the Islamist revivalism elsewhere throughout the world and with Iran as the central catalyst, embarked on a series of political assaults against UMNO and the Barisan government in such intensity as yet unseen.

In short, PAS’ agenda was to equate UMNO and Barisan Nasional with infidelity and a vote for UMNO or BN was a vote against Islam. Those who did that would be the enemy of Islam and would consequently go to hell. It was a simple message. It was as basic as it comes. The mass media referred to this propaganda as the “kafir-mengkafir” (branding people as infidel) issue. The infamous “Amanat Hadi Awang” ( Hadi Awang’s Decree) was laid by Hadi Awang in 1981.[i] Loosely translated, Hadi decreed:

“My brothers, believe me. We oppose UMNO not because its name is UMNO, we oppose the Barisan Nasional not because its name is Barisan Nasional. We oppose them because they continue with the Constitution of the colonial, continue with the regulations of the infidel, continue with the regulations of the ignorant. Because of that we struggle to fight them. Believe me brothers, our struggle is a divine struggle (jihad). Our speech is jihad, our donation is jihad and because we struggle against these groups, if we die in our fights, our death is martyrdom, our death is an Islamic death. We do not have to join the Jews, we do not have to profess Christianity, we do not have to profess Hinduism, we do not have to profess Buddhism, but we will be infidels if we say politic is a quarter and religion is a quarter.”

Hadi Awang was, and still is, a brilliant and fiery orator. His was a potent mixture of oratorical skills and political savvy-ness unashamedly laced with religious fervour. His audience were the farmers, the padi planters, the young Malay in the rural areas, the young impressionable university students and those who were unknowingly caught and swept away by Islamist revivalism. In other words, he appealed to the poor non-urbanites as well as the impressionable intellect who were tired of the Barisan Nasional’s policies and were looking for alternatives.

The Barisan Nasional, under Mahathir Mohamad, did not lack leadership. However, Mahathir was too much of a leader as much as he was a listener. Polemic was a dirty word. Dissent, political or otherwise, was even a dirtier word. As a result, it was a government which lacked any kind of intellectual input. It was a government which lacked any kind of opposite ideas which would provide the impetus for any counter-reactive steps when faced with political assaults based on rural popularism. Thus, the Mahathir led government was at a loss on how to counter PAS in general and Hadi Awang in particular. The effect of the Islamist revivalism caused by the Iranian revolution was slowly, but very surely, sweeping the nation under Mahathir’s nose without him even sniffing it!

The government tried to counter the sudden revival of Islam by portraying itself as an Islamist government. The Barisan Nasional’s or more specifically, UMNO’s brand of Islam saw the emergence of the various Islamic authorities, Islamic school, Islamic attire and a more Islamic oriented civil service. Thus, where there were no female students wearing a tudung in school in 1979, the tudung became almost an identifying factor in the early 80’s. Efforts were made to show that UMNO was in fact a more Islamic party than PAS. And UMNO’s Islam is a better Islam than PAS’ Islam. That was the agenda.

However, the government’s efforts to “Islamise” the country as a counter-reaction to PAS’ populist political assaults has just resulted in PAS gaining more and more momentum in their political assaults. In Kedah for example, a village would have 2 mosques, one for UMNO’s supporters and another for PAS supporters. Families broke up just because the father was a PAS supporter and the son was an UMNO supporter. Marriage could not take place because the bride to be comes from an “UMNO family” and the groom comes from a “PAS family”. PAS supporters don’t attend a khenduri by an UMNO supporter and vice versa. Even the dead would not be prayed for by PAS supporters if he or she was an UMNO supporter! These were the scenes at the height of the kafir-mengkafir controversy.

In the universities, the full force of the Islamist revivalism, which translated itself into a war of political idealism slowly seeped into student politics. As a student who was active in student politics in the University of Malaya in the early 80’s, I went through hellish moments and countless confrontations with students who leaned more towards the PAS political ideologies. (There is no doubt that the development in the student movements, both locally and abroad, in the 80’s laid the premise for the current political climate in our country. I don’t think this is realised by the powers that be).

Hadi Awang and the PAS agenda were therefore left largely unchecked. On the social front, Islamist organisations, such as Al-Arqam, were gaining momentum, recruiting not only rural Malay folks but also young Malay intellects as members. The Mahathir led government was at a loss to deal with this sudden rise of a concept which was almost alien to this country. Suddenly, wearing a skirt was deemed anti-social in Malaysia. Going to work or school without a tudung was deemed immoral in Malaysia.

Memali was a sleepy little village near Baling, Kedah. Surrounded by rubber smallholdings, the villagers were mainly rubber tappers, odd jobbers and farmers. These were among the forgotten people of Malaysia. Ensconced within an impoverish surroundings, these were people who had never seen development. The benefits, if any, of the New Economics Policy only spread within a small circle of the Malay elites and the people of Memali were too far away from even the edge of that circle. They were the modern proletarians whose only concern was to find enough to eat and to survive on day in day out.

When hope was not a part of life, what else was there to look forward to, other than to hope for the best in the after world? In death, if one could go to heaven; bath in rivers of milk and surrounded by virgin nymphs, what wouldn’t one give to ensure such heavenly achievements? Thus it came as no surprise that PAS’ ideologies, encapsulated by Hadi Awang’s decree, won the hearts of the people of Memali. UMNO after all was the antithesis of life in Memali. UMNO was rich. UMNO was in the big towns. And of course, UMNO was infidel! And we fight them, we are on a divine struggle. And if we die, we are martyrs.

Ibrahim Mahmud was a graduate of the University of Tripoli (thus was his nick name, Ibrahim Libya). He also studied in Al-Azhar. When he came back, he even made some appearances on national television. But back in Memali he was an orator in the Hadi Awang’s mould. Fiery, enthralling, charismatic and full of religious fervour. Obviously, he jumped onto Hadi Awang’s martyrdom formula to gain his political mileage. And in Memali, where life was hard and mired in hopelessness, heavenly promises would be the only hope left. The people of Memali embraced the call for jihad and Ibrahim Mahmud aka Ibrahim Libya became a religious leader for whom the Memali people were ready to die in order to protect him from the neo-colonialist-imperialist-infidel UMNO led government.

The Mahathir led government meanwhile had no clue on how to deal with the likes of Ibrahim Libya. It branded him a criminal and set out to arrest him and detain him under the ISA. Just how various attempts to arrest and detain him failed is beyond my comprehension as the government has on numerous occasions shown that when it wanted to arrest or suppress the people, it would somehow succeed. On the 19^th November 1985, after Subuh prayers (morning prayers), the police surrounded Ibrahim’s madrasah. When attempts to arrest him failed, the police fired guns and killed 14 villagers, including women and old folks. Most of them were rubber tappers, farmers and oddjobbers who were armed with parangs, spears and one or two hand guns. Four policemen also perished.

Memali is proof that the New Economic Policy doesn’t benefit the forgotten people of Malaysia. It is testimony that the politics of hatred, much more when the hatred is based on religious differences, would soon terminate in a colossal debacle. Memali is also about a government which had lost its plot, which had no idea how to deal with oppositions in a proper and democratic manner, in an area where it lacked clear ideals and plans. Never in the history of independent Malaysia has the might of physical power been so nonchalantly and casually executed on the helpless and weak. At the very least, the usage of brute power against the villagers was reckless, if not downright wrongful and illegal.

In true Mahathir fashion, Mahathir Mohamad sometimes later insinuated that he was not responsible for the Memali incident as he was abroad on 19^th November 1985, when it happened. That also insinuated that Musa Hitam was responsible as he was then the Acting Prime Minsiter and Home Minister. Whatever it was, it was during the administration of the Barisan Nasional government, of which UMNO was the leading party, that the incident happened.

What does Ketuanan Melayu mean to the people of Memali, then and even now? What does the New Economics Policy mean to the people of Memali, then and even now? If the Judges who were wrongfully sacked and suspended by the Mahathir regime in 1988 could be paid a total of 10 million ringgit, perhaps the Memali people deserve even more.

Mahathir Mohamad. Musa Hitam. And the whole cabinet in 1985. Please visit Memali and feel the pain of the forgotten people of Malaysia. And if the Memali incident does not tickle even the edge of your conscience, you are perhaps a lesser human than you think you are.

Al-Fatihah to those who died in Memali on 19^th November 1985.

---

[i] Saudara-saudara sekalian, Percayalah! Kita menentang UMNO bukan kerana nama dia UMNO, kita menentang Barisan Nasional, bukan kerana nama Barisan Nasional. Kita menentang dia kerana dia mengekalkan Perlembagaan penjajah, mengekalkan peraturan kafir, mengekalkan peraturan jahiliah. Oleh kerana itulah kita berjuang melawan mereka. Percayalah saudara, perjuangan kita adalah jihad, Ucapan kita adalah jihad, derma kita adalah jihad dan kerana kita berjuang dengan puak-puak ini, kalau kita mati kerana berlawan ini, mati kita adalah mati syahid, mati kita adalah mati Islam. Kita tidak payah masuk Yahudi, kita tidak payah masuk Kristian, kita tidak payah masuk Hindu, kita tidak payah masuk Buddha, tetapi kita menjadi kafir dengan mengatakan politik suku agama suku.” : Haji Hadi Awang, 1981.

of permits and licenses...

 

The fracas caused by the ever over-reacting Polis di Raja Malaysia during the candle light vigil at Amcorp Mall last weekend brings to light, not only the people's fundamental right to assemble - a right which is guaranteed by article 10 of the Federal Constitution - but also the complete misunderstanding of the purposes and functions of permits and licenses by the authorities.

I have said it before and I will say it again. And this time, let me type this real slowly, just in case the authorities could not read fast enough. The purpose of permits and licenses is not to prohibit but to regulate. Get it? Not to prohibit. But to regulate.

There are some businesses, for example, which, if left unregulated, might affect public order. Take the serving of alcohol. If not regulated, people would be serving alcohol at a stall in front of my gate. Drunk people might then make so much noises in front of my house in the wee hours of the morning. They might even puke on my car! Because of that, the authorities require licenses to be obtained by those who would like to serve alcohol as a business. Thus, the business of serving alcohol could be regulated. For example, they must be done in an enclosed shop. The shop must close at 1 am. Whatever.

In Amsterdam, marijuana or weeds - or grass as it is also well known for -  is legal. But the business of selling and serving weeds in that city is regulated. They can only sell and be smoked in an enclosed shop. Only people above the age of 18 can buy, sell and smoke it. As such, you don't see peddlers at some back street in Amsterdam harassing people to buy weeds. Neither do you see stone-faced weeds-smelling larger louts puking in the drain and jumping into the river at 2am in Amsterdam.

In Singapore, prostitution is regulated. The leisure women go for regular medical check-ups and carry a yellow card (or is it green, I am not too sure). And they can only ply their trade in a certain area of Singapore. That regulates the oldest profession in Singapore.

I am not, of course, advocating the legalisation of weeds or prostitution in Malaysia. I have to say this. Because otherwise people like Zulkifli Nordin would say I am a bad Muslim. I am just pointing out the role, purpose and function of permits and/or licenses. To add to it all, the authorities could also collect fees from the issuance of the permits and licenses.

Another business which is regulated is money lending. It is a fact that people borrow money. And there are also people who lend money. On purely unjust and unfair terms, that is. You borrow money, give them your land title, and if you fart more than 3 times, they would take your land and sell it! That kind of terms. But the authorities now require money lenders to obtain license. And so the business of money lending is regulated. Interest rate is regulated.  Methods of recovery is regulated.

The problem is this. In Malaysia, however, permits and licenses are not issued even if the applicants qualify for the permits or licenses. If you don't trust me, try to get a money lending license. You can't get one. Even if you satisfy all the requirements. So over here, permits and licenses are not tools of regulations but rather they are used to prohibit people from doing the business.

The result is the people who could have been  lawful money-lender now become Ah Long. They would charge 50% interest. Pain your gate red if you don't pay. Spray rabbit's blood on your windscreen if you don't pay after the red pain on your gate. Then they would shyte in front of your gate before shooting the bejeezus out of your brain with a silver bullet! That's what happen when permits and licenses are used as a prohibitory tool rather than as a regulatory tool. The people who fail to get permits and licenses would go underground.

Prostitution here goes underground. It is controlled by triads and heavenly gods! The business churns millions everyday. It is wholly unregulated. I have heard reports from NGOs of 12-13 year old girls being involved in prostitution in Chow Kitt! I don't know whether the authorities know about this and if so, what they are doing about it.

Gambling is big business in Malaysia. And not only at Genting, mind you. EPL bets go to the tune of millions every weekend. They have odds published via text messages. Manchester United versus Arsenal? How about half goal to Arsenal with a draw at half time without a goal and a full time score of 2-1 to Manchester United. Rooney will score first. Three yellow cards. No red. The referee will not get a cramp. And Wenger will lose a tooth. They bet on anything. And it is all unregulated!

So. What have all these to do with the fracas last weekend? Simple. The law provides that anybody who wants to assemble a group of more than 3 people in Malaysia, must obtain a permit. Stop here. Can you imagine? Every assembly of 3 or more people in Malaysia without a permit is in law an illegal assembly? Can you all imagine that? I mean, 3 people shyting in a KLCC toilet could, on the face of it, be arrested for an illegal assembly? Amazing!

Anyway. I was saying, every assembly must have a police permit. Otherwise it is an illegal assembly. Sounds simple? Yea...rite! Try obtaining the permit. And especially when you are wearing a free RPK black t-shirt or Repeal ISA red t-shirt, you can forget about obtaining the permit. Regardless of the fact that all you want to do is to gather, sing some songs, read some poems and burn some candles. No. You just can't get a permit.

The police chief said that they have asked the organisers to obtain a permit. Since they didn't, the vigil was illegal. That was why they had to jump on them, with baton and all,  arrested them and detained them till 3am.

When permits and licenses are used as a prohibitory tool, that is what's going to happen. People will assemble illegally. Take the Bersih and Hindraf rally last year. It was so simple for the police - who I am sure only has public order in their mind - to control the planned rally. Issue a permit. Impose a condition or conditions. Tell the organisers you all can only assemble at Dataran Merdeka. You can't move. You can have one big speaker. Can make noise but cannot exceed 150dB. You can bring banner but cannot be as big as the Malaysian flag on the biggest flag pole in Asia. And you all must wear an orange shirt with green pants. Women cannot wear pants. Things like that. Than the police can control the assembly.

But no. They didn't issue a permit. The people assembled anyway. And so water cannons were used. Batons were used. Malaysia became instantly famous. CNN. BBC. Al-Jazeera. What more with the Mydin guy crucifying the English language on international TV. Great!

What is so difficult about giving permits and imposing reasonable conditions to maintain public order? Why must permits and licenses be used to curtail a fundamental liberty instead of to regulate and ensure a peaceful exercise of it? I really don't know.

And the thing is, the exercise of the arresting power for the so-called illegal assemblies is  not even consistent. Why, for example, the police did not jump on Zulkifli Nordin and his band of Islamist yahoos when they were kicking up quite a ruckus at the Bar Council building during the conversion forum? Why were they not baton-ed or arrested? And what about the long march to the American Embassy by Khairy Jamaluddin last year? If the peace loving Malaysians carrying candle must be so forcefully treated in order to maintain public order, why were the yahoos who were shouting, screaming and acting in a very threatening manner not so arrested?

Sorry. I am just a simple minded person. Perhaps there are some reasons for the different treatment meted out to different people at a different time. Perhaps.

Just perhaps.

 

RPK's Release: A Tapestry of Thoughts and Emotions

After having a "super kow" Nescafe tarik at the Pelita restaurant near the Shah Alam Court, I drove back to my office in Kuala Lumpur for a lunch appointment.  RPK was ordered to be released about an hour before.  I was elated. I was emotionally drained. I was satisfied.

The scale of what Imtiaz, myself and the battery of lawyers involved in the RPK's habeas corpus application had managed to achieve had however yet  to fully sink in. On the Federal Highway, I received calls after calls and text message after text message. News traveled fast in these days and age. Barely 45 minutes after the order was made, for example, an old schoolmate of mine called from Kedah to congratulate me. He said he saw the news on TV.

I was pumped up with adrenalin. I was oblivious to  whatever things which were happening around me. The slow Friday crawl on the Federal Highway gave me time to really ponder and reflect at what had just happened in Court that morning. But the main feeling was one of disbelief.

It was when the coffee lady was serving me coffee in my office that the full magnitude of it all began to sink in. The whole office had known of the RPK case was won earlier. In-house e-mails were sent to everyone in the firm as soon as my secretary received the news from me. I took a sip of the hot coffee. The coffee lady stood there, not leaving my office as she would usually do after putting my obligatory mug of coffee on my desk. I looked at her. She smiled.

"Boss, you menang itu Botak punya kes ah?", she asked.

Before I could answer, she followed up, "saya tadak tau Boss buat itu kes. Itu Botak sekarang sudah keluar ah? Itu macam bagus ah..."

The "Botak" was of course RPK. There she was, a coffee lady, who could barely speak Malay or English, whose function in my office was to serve all of us coffee, twice a day, expressing her happiness that the "Botak's" case had been won!

I said, "ya, itu Botak nanti petang mau keluar".

She smiled and walked towards the door. Almost thankful to me. Almost grateful to me for making her day.

At that moment, it all sank in.

***************************************************

Raja Petra Kamaruddin aka RPK.

I did not know him. Although I knew of him, by virtue of the fact that his web site, MalaysiaToday, is a site I visit everyday. Neither have I ever met him. Before yesterday (7th November 2008), that is.

I received news about the policemen visiting him at his house to pick him up under the ISA rather early. It was around 12.30pm. I called up Harris but his mobile was not turned on. So, I called up Imtiaz.

Imtiaz confirmed the news and told me that Harris was either on his way to RPK's house or already there. The feeling that I had then was one of disbelief. And that feeling  quickly transformed into one of anger. If a government had to resort to a detention without trial in order to "protect the country from a security threat" caused by all but ONE person, than that government does not deserve to govern. It was a blatant abuse and misuse of power. An abuse which was reflective of the government's inability - or unwillingness? - to engage the people in connection with every grievance which the people had. An abuse which was reflective of a governmental mindset that did not respect criticisms; did not listen to the voice of its own soul, ie, the people which it sets out to govern; did not give 2 sen to the people's rights and freedom. An abuse which was vile. And depraved.

I quickly told Imtiaz that he could consider me to be on board with whatever legal maneuvers which were deemed necessary to procure a quick release of RPK.

***************************************************

Marina Lee was like a Goddess. She would stand outside the Court, holding the hand of her two daughters; hugging and shaking the hands of RPK's supporters and well wishers; smiling to the crowd and answering questions from the reporters with a degree of calmness that belied the enormity of the situation.

After the hearing in the morning of  22.10.2008, she was waiting for me at the lobby of the Court. I have been introduced to her at Imtiaz's office the week before. And I had, by then, grown to be accustomed with her poise, her calmness and her patience. She was a towering lady of steely nerve. As I came down the stairs of the Court lobby, she came to me. She held my hand and looked me into the eyes and said, "can I give you a hug?" I said "of course".

She stepped forward and gave me one of the most memorable hugs I would ever have. She held me for some time and said, "thank you". At that moment I suddenly felt the pressure and the weight of the task that has been thrust on me, Imtiaz and the whole team. I felt proud. I felt sad. All at the same time. And deep down in me I was asking myself, "what would I do if we lose the case?"

I did not think I would have the heart to face Marina in that situation.

Yesterday, (7.11.208), I had a drink with RPK and Marina's daughters at the Court canteen while waiting for RPK to be produced in Court. Two lovely daughters he has. Intelligent, smart, fully aware of the situation concerning their father and Malaysia as a country. They were calm. Although beneath their eyes, I could detect the waves of emotions running through their veins while waiting for RPK to appear. "Is he going to be re-arrested?", they asked.

I looked at them and almost in an indiscernible voice, I said, "I don't think so."

The truth was that I didn't think I would be able to stay sane had that happened.

***************************************************

He was produced in Court at about 3.25pm. He looked haggard. And tired.  I stole a moment to take a picture of him sitting on the Court bench waiting for his freedom to be officialised.

He was soft spoken. And the look of his face said it all. I approached him. Imtiaz was talking to him and I was later introduced to him. Finally, I was meeting my client. He looked at me, took my hand and I said, "Ungku, I am Azhar".

He smiled and he hugged me. A hug which I would not forget. A hug of a free man. His tears were streaming down his cheek. He looked around, as if he was measuring freedom. "How are you, Ungku?", I asked.

"I am just relieved. Thanks to you. I don't think I would be able to last another day there", he said.

"You know, last Saturday, Marina came to see me at the camp. I told her next Saturday I don't want her to come to the camp anymore. I want to be home with her by then. And you know, yesterday I was allowed to wander around the solitary confinement block. I was looking at Bukit Larut from inside the camp. I was telling myself, tomorrow I want to look at Bukit Larut from outside of the camp", he said with a smile.

"Well Ungku, your prayer and wish have been granted", I replied.

With that I moved to the Bar table. The Judge came in and His Lordship officially noted RPK's presence in Court. His Lordship then set him free. The crowd in the public gallery gasped in disbelief. Somebody was about to break into an applause but remembering what the learned Judge had said in the morning, the applause was halted.

Just as the learned Judge retired into his chambers, Marina and her two daughters stood up and grabbed hold of RPK. There they were. Four of them, lost in their own little world, hugging each other while tears flowed freely even among those in the public gallery.

Freedom. Free from a purely abusive and tyrannical act of a government which feared it's own shadow. Free from the clutches of an impotent executive, whose bravery was only limited to executing acts of blatant cowardice against its own people.

Freedom.

***************************************************

I arrived at La Bodega at around 5pm. It was supposed to be a celebration of sorts. But when I walked into the Lounge upstairs, the air was subdued. Imtiaz was sitting in front of me. Reflective. Brooding even.

RPK made an appearance later in the evening. Again he thanked me. I had to tell him that I think it was the learned Judge and the Court which were the real heroes of the day. It was the learned Judge's courage that had won RPK's freedom. He was courageous.

I took a picture of him again. Just look at him and compare to the picture of himself in the Court a couple of hours earlier. Look at how fresh he appeared to be in the red t-shirt. And look at the smile. And that focus in his eyes.

That's what freedom could render to a human being.

***************************************************

RPK's release meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people. 

To RPK and family, it would be the joy of regaining freedom and liberty. Of being with each other once again. Of enjoying togetherness, which was so abruptly and wrongly taken away from them, once again.

To the lawyers - me included - it was about the satisfaction of being able to contribute to the attainment of freedom and liberty of a person. It was also about a fight against repression. I was glad to be a part of it all. And to leave a small mark in Malaysia's pursuit of a just and fair society, a society which is able to live freely and without fear of oppression.

But the real hero, as I had said earlier was the Court and the learned Judge, His Lordship Dato' Syed Ahmad Helmy bin Syed Ahmad. While we travel in this dark age of uncertainty, he shines like a beacon.

The tyrannical regime of Dr Mahathir Mohammad had taken away judicial power from the Court by amending the Federal Constitution. They had tried to usurp the power of the Court by ousting its power of review over ISA detentions.

But yesterday, the Court, through Justice Dato' Syed Ahmad Helmy bin Syed Ahmad, rose to reclaim it's position as the ultimate balancer; the ultimate dispenser of justice and the ultimate institution which would check and balance out the abuses and excesses of the executives.

Yesterday was a day the Court, the peace loving people of Malaysia and justice embrace each other and walk alongside each other on the same road.

The road to liberty.

 

 

 

 

Ketuanan Melayu

I have refrained myself from writing about politics for the whole of October. I was so muak of Malaysian politics that I felt I had to get away from it all. It is now November. And here I think I should say something about this subject.

I am normally very good at grasping a concept, understanding it, differentiating it from other not dissimilar concept, identifying it's positive and negative points and using it. However, try as I might, I just could not understand the concept of Ketuanan Melayu aka Malay Supremacy aka Malay Dominance. Let alone identify it. Now I wonder whether I have lost it. I have lost my intelligence. That could be it. Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is no such concept to begin with. And that is why I can't identify it.

Throughout my years in government schools and later in government university, as well as my one year in a Mat Salleh university, I have not come across the concept of Ketuanan Melayu. And that despite the fact that history was my  favourite subject. That also despite the fact that I took not only the Malaysian Federal Constitution as a subject, but also the Malaysian Administrative Law as well as Comparative Constitutional Laws as optional subjects. Not to mention the Study of Politics paper which I also took in the Economics faculty for fun.

No. I did not come across that concept in all my school years. Nada. Zilch! I must have missed the lectures or tutorials when the subject of Ketuanan Melayu was being taught or discussed (which is likely) or I was then asleep (which is likely too!). Or, it could be that that subject was never ever taught or discussed. And if it wasn't so taught or discussed, the most likely explanation to that omission would be that there is no such thing as Ketuanan Melayu. That is my logical mind at work. I can't put illogical reasoning to this conundrum because I am a logical person. Perhaps YB Zulkifli Nordin has a different view. I don't know. He probably has one. And then some. Because he is a clever fellow. Sorry, I digress.

So, if Ketuanan Melayu was never ever taught or discussed in my 18 years of studies, when it was a fact that I took subjects in which the matter would have ordinarily been discussed, I can make a reasonable conclusion that the concept never existed. If it did, it was insignificant or irrelevant to our history or laws so much so that it was not worth a mention.

How then this so called concept manage to infiltrate our socio-politico scenes lately? Dr Mahathir talked about it. Zaid Ibrahim said the concept was a failure. Shahidan Kassim said Zaid should repent for saying what he said. Syed Hamid Albar asked Zaid to apologise and branded Zaid a traitor! Shahidan went even further to say that Zaid should cease from being a Malay and that he should repent!

The question is, if Zaid was or is a Malay ,(is he? Am I? Are you?) how could Zaid cease from being one? How does one un-Malay oneself? Or was Shahidan talking about the legal concept of being a Malay? Under our Federal Constitution, a Malay is defined as being a person who:

i) practices the Malay adat and ways of living;

ii) professes the religion of Islam; and,

iii) speak Bahasa Malaysia (aka Bahasa Kebangsaan aka Bahasa Melayu which later became Bahasa Malaysia and then turned into Bahasa Melayu yet again and now is known as Bahasa....well...I don't know).

Following such definition, I suppose Zaid can un-Malay himself by not doing either or all of those things. We should pause here for a while. Note the first criteria above. One is a Malay if one practices the Malay adat and way of life. That's like saying one is an English if one is an English. Like how are we going to know what Malay adat is and Malay ways of life is when the word "Malay" is not yet defined? Jeez... The Malays used to carry the keris all over town. Nowadays no Malay in his/her correct mind would do so. Does that mean there are no more Malays around? The Malays used to be able to visit their neighbours without an appointment or pre-set date. Now most Malay urbanite don't even dream of doing that. Even the hari raya "open house" is only "opened" to invitees only. Does that mean most Malay urbanites are not Malays anymore? I don't know. I am just asking.

Back to Zaid and Shahidan Kassim. I was saying, rather, asking, how does Zaid un-Malay himself?

Then, apparently Zaid should "repent". Repentance connotes an act which is religious in nature. One repents if one has committed a sinful act. If so, since when, may I ask, has disputing or "challenging" the efficiency of Ketuanan Melayu become a sin?

Shahidan was also quoted as saying Zaid should leave the "rumpun Melayu". Yea...rite. Typical. Remember the MP's remark in the parliament not so long ago? "If the "pendatangs" don't like it here, then "they" should leave the country!". Very intellectual. Very stimulating engagement. What a polemic! Shahidan, ur da man.

Lets just for one moment accept  that Ketuanan Melayu exists factually and conceptually. And let us all  hypothesise  that the Federal Constitution was premised upon such concept.

Question: what is the use of the Malays being a Tuan all the way if the Malays are still lagging behind in all aspects of achievements in their "own" country?

Question 2: how does one reconcile the "dominance" or "supremacy" of the Malays with the fact that the Malays, according to UMNO and our leaders, still need subsidies and preferential treatments - in Dr Mahathir's words or terminology, this is called "affirmative actions" - in order to make them successful?

Question 3: when we speak of the Malay Dominance or Malay Supremacy, what is the subject over which the Malays are supposed to be dominant or supreme?

In the phaleo-worlds, the concept of "dominance" connotes the physical power to assert control over a subject matter. "Supremacy" on the other hand is a state of being supreme. In  terms of socio-politico outlook, the Malay Supremacy would mean the installation and maintenance of the Malays as the supreme authority of the society or the land. Historically, we would  probably have to go back to the 1400s, during the era of the Melaka Sultanates, to find, if at all,  such a level of dominance by or supremacy of the Malays.

The arrival of the Portuguese, Dutch and later the English as well as the Japanese had completely destroyed such socio-politico status of the Malays and their rulers. History would show that the English made our Rulers agree to the appointment of various advisors, the advice of whom must be accepted and implemented by the Rulers. That completely banished any iota of dominance or supremacy of the Malays over the society and the land. If the effect was immediately felt in the socio-politico arena, soon it would also have an economical consequences as well.

The Japanese were however more accommodating to the status of the Malay rulers and the Malays  in general. However that was borne out of the necessity to win the support (or at least the acceptance) of the Malays as the Chinese was far more physical in their opposition of the Japanese. That was due to the historical animosity between Japan and China. And so preferential treatments were accorded to the Malays and even their rulers by the Japanese.

That was however to change when the British came back. The proposed Malayan Union would render the Malay rulers, and the Malays, as normal and equal citizens as the British were more interested in establishing a Westminster based democracy. The British ideals were however not well met by the Malays, who claimed historical dominance and "supremacy" in the phaleo-world.

Here lies the claim for the "social contract". This hyphotesises an agreement between the Malays and the British - some sort of a modern aged Magna Carta - whereby the Malays would agree to the Chinese and Indians being granted citizenship to the fledgling Malaysia as long as certain Malay rights and the position of the Malay rulers are preserved. Hence the provisions of Articles 152 and 153 in the Federal Constitution.

If we accept therefore the existence of the "social contract" -  and I have no doubt that it existed - surely the concept of Malay Dominance or Supremacy could not have existed anymore. That is because such concept would have been superseded by the "social contract" which our politicians so readily embrace and protect as a sacrosanct deed as well as the provisions in the Federal Constitution. Surely the establishment of a Westminster styled Federation and democracy would run repugnant to the concept of Malay Dominance or Supremacy as the two could not walk with each other on the same road.

A lot has been said about the social contract. But what is being focused at is the citizenship rights which have been so graciously granted by the Malays to the non-Malays (some called the non-Malays "pendatangs" or "immigrants"). However, no effort is being done to look at the social contract from the viewpoint of the non-Malays. Surely the non-Malays, in accepting the social contract, also had their own expectations. Surely the social contract is a contract which impose obligations and rights to both the Malays, on one side, and also the non-Malays, on the other side.

Consequently, would it not be unreasonable to argue that in entering into the social contract with the Malays, the non-Malays would have expected that they are not going to be dominated by the Malays and that all citizens are to be equal before the law and that no particular citizen shall be regarded as supreme?

I would have thought not.

digging the grave

1.1 Malaysia in transit

Malaysiakini.com yesterday reported that Najib Razak will take over as Minister of Finance from the Prime Minister while the later will assume Najib Razak's portfolio in the Ministry of Defence. The raison d'etre for this portfolio swap appears to be the smoothening of the planned power transition, whereby Najib Razak is to be given an "important portfolio" which is traditionally held by the Prime Minister. Abdullah Ahmad was quoted as saying:

"It is an important portfolio, taking into account the current economic situation, the uncertainties and the challenges that we are facing...for all these we need a plan so that we can stay strong economically"

Abdullah Ahmad also left open the prospect of him stepping down as the UMNO President and Prime Minister before the planned 2010 transition. On this, he was quoted as saying:

"I will decide when I want to go... I will not be staying more than 2010 naturally...It depends on the progress of the role I am giving to Najib. Let's see what he can do...Handing over is a process. We will study the process and as it goes along, we will decide accordingly."

The first thing which came to my mind upon hearing the news was a question. And the question is this. When will our so called leaders would act with the best interest of the country, and not the interest of the party or any other extrinsic interest(s) in mind? Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch are both in financial disarray and the former is now under Chapter 11 administration in the USofA. AIG might follow suit. The whole world is suffering from the ripple caused by the downfall of these financial giants. Bursa Malaysia might go below the psychological barrier of 1000 points soon. The Ringgit is free falling. The economy is not so hot. Foreign funds outflow for 2008 has far outstripped 2007 outflow. And all our so called leaders are concerned about is the swapping of 2 very important portfolios in order to smoothen out the planned power transition of UMNO.

Just like the various policies taken by the Education Ministry to solve whatever problems the schools, school kids and teachers are having, which would later be reversed, turned over and re-implemented, resulting in the poor school kids being overturned in the process, this latest portfolio swapping is but another furniture moving exercise for which this leadership is so well known. It lacks purpose, objective, direction and of course, class!

What is even more worrying is when Abdullah Ahmad was quoted as saying:

"Let's see what he can do..."

Yes. Lets see what Najib Razak can do. If he is good, than Abdullah Ahmad might step down earlier than 2010. Or whatever. Well, what if he is not good? Oh, not to worry, if he is not good, I would re-take over the Ministry of Finance and he would re-take over Ministry of Defence, is it?

Perhaps it is time Abdullah Ahmad, Najib Razak and their ilk (Mahathir Mohamad included) should be reminded that the various Ministries, which collectively form the Government of Malaysia, are not their private properties, or the properties of their party, which are to be distributed, parked or divided among each other willy nilly.

I have a suggestion. Recently BN MPs were sent to Taiwan and Macau to learn about agriculture, just so that they could argue and debate the 2009 budget well. If there is so much concerns about Najib Razak's ability as a leader, why don't he be sent to somewhere to attend leadership courses?

1.2 Wrong prescription

Dr Mahathir insisted that the reason for UMNO's colossal defeat in the 2008 General Election and the recent Permatang Pauh by-election is not because the people are unhappy with UMNO or the state of things but rather it is caused by the people's unhappiness with Abdullah Ahmad and his leadership (or lack of it). Well, I have got news for him. Dr Mahathir, you are wrong!

The truth is the people are fed up with UMNO's policies. It is just unfortunate for Abdullah Ahmad that he is the President of UMNO when this unhappiness swells to an uncontrollable size and intensity. You can put whoever at the top of UMNO and UMNO would still lose the General Election and by-election. It is not the people at the top. But it is the policies which these people represent which the people are unhappy with. And the policies which these people represent are the policies of UMNO. The are policies which involve the politics of fear, discrimination, unfairness, arrogance, corruption and cronyism which fuel a continuous unhappiness of, if not hatred, for UMNO. And the sad thing is nobody within UMNO's current so called leadership will be able to cure the current malady with which UMNO is infested. Why?

Because 22 years of totalitarianism has produced absolute yes men who can't think for themselves; who are incapable of differentiating the good from the bad; who are unable to see a problem when a problem exists, let alone grasp it, analise it and solve it.

When Margaret Thatcher was forced to resign as Prime Minister and not seek a re-election as the head of the Conservative Party in 1990, the party was in a turmoil. The Iron Lady had until then ruled Great Britain, and the Conservative Party, with an iron fist. She would steamroll her way to whatever decision she thought was correct, even to a point of overriding her colleague's decisions, both from within her own cabinet and the party. She left a weak Tory government in tatters. And also a weak Tory Party. After being challenged by Michael Haseltine for the party leadership, she was succeeded by the nice, straight faced but downright boring John Major. He unexpectedly won the general election in 1992. In 1997, finally, the Conservative was defeated by Tony Blair's Labour Party in a landslide defeat.

If history teaches us anything, the above episode shows that once the people have decided that enough is enough and a party must go, it really does not matter who is at the helm of the party. John Major was the nicest politician the UK had ever seen, a man whose father was a music hall artist; who rose among the poor to just obtain 6 o-levels; who professed to have been educated in the "university of life." But during his premiership, the people's unhappiness with the Tories was at its peak, fueled by hatred towards Thatcherism, a form of economics and political policies which were not friendly to the people on the streets. And the Tory went down like a led balloon (to borrow Keith Moon's expression).

Change Magaret Thatcher to Dr Mahathir; John Major to Abdullah Ahmad; Conservative Party to UMNO; Thatcherism to Mahathirism and the UK to Malaysia. And I really don't have to write more.

Allow me to give some advice. The power transition, regardless of whether it happens smoothly and as planned in 2010 or earlier or whether it happens during the coming December party election is not going to change anything as far as the people's perception of UMNO is concerned. UMNO has far exceeded the people's tolerance level and it will sink like a stone regardless of who its leader is. To win the people, UMNO itself must change. Take a look at the mirror, find out what is really wrong and correct it. In short, UMNO's current policies must change.

A change of faces just wouldn't do.

Pure and simple.

nailing the coffin...

1.0 Lies

When you are lied to the first time, you tend to get upset because you  have been lied to. When you are lied to by the same party many times, you would not only get even more upset and angry but you would also develop a sense of distrust of the lying party. However, what is even more upsetting than continuous lies would be lies which are so stupid and so unbelievably astounding that it is a gross insult for the perpetrator to actually think that his or her lie will be believed by us.

The audacity with which the current government is lying to the people would make the ruse involving a certain wooden horse pregnant with soldiers in its belly seems meek, if not downright tame and uninventive. "Bersih rally by 4000 people", screamed the government gazettes last year. It was of course a blatant lie. When the whole world could see the truth from photographs splashed all over the internet, one began not to get upset only by the fact that they have been lied to but also from the audacity of it all. It prompted me to write and send this letter. It of course did not get to see the light of day.

"I don't have anything to do with Jean", said the PM. He of course married her not too long after that. "I am not going to dissolve the Parliament", again, said the PM. The very next day, when the ink on the newspaper quoting him saying so was barely dry, he dissolved the Parliament. Malaysia holds many world records, among which, the longest ikan bakar grill in the Milky Way. Add to that is the fastest time in which a major newspaper headline is proven untrue or incorrect.

The latest is of course the lie about the trip to Taiwan and Macau being a trip arranged for the Barisan Nasional's MPs to learn about agriculture in order to enable them to better argue and debate the budget in Parliament! Why don't they just say that the trip was arranged to enable the BN MPs to visit a UFO site where aliens with solution for our racial integration problems; budget deficit; inter-faith issues; incompetent Judges; corrupt politicians and civil service and men with small dick had landed? It would easier for all of us to swallow.

1.1 Maths and Science - to English or not to English

No less than Khairy Jamaluddin has critisised the "half-baked" (to borrow his own words) policy of improving the standard of English among Malaysian students by teaching Maths and Science subjects in English. I don't really know what motivates him for doing so but the odd thing is he now seems to be critisising his superior in UMNO Youth. As we all know, that policy was mooted and implemented by the current Education Minister, Hishamuddin Hussein who is of course the Youth movement's chief. So, is this a sign of a sudden surge of intellectualism within UMNO Youth or is it some kind of a political posturing or both, one wonders?

Be that as it may, I have been saying all these while that that policy is not half baked but it is actually baked in an electric oven without the mains switch being switched on. Just imagine a 14 year old students in Form 2. For 8 years of his life he has been learning Maths and Science in Bahasa Malaysia. "Add" means "campur" to him. So does "fraction" mean "pecahan". His English is not good. Suddenly they teach those subject in English. How does that help him to improve his English? And we have not even begun to talk about the teachers. These teachers were all from Bahasa Malaysia school. They themselves were taught Maths and Science in Bahasa Malaysia. They were trained in Bahasa Malaysia. And one day, they woke up, brushed their teeth, took a bath, went to school and they had to teach these subjects in English. You don't have to graduate from Oxford to know that that policy will not work! In fact, it is a burden on the students and teachers alike.

The problem with this government is  its inability to grasp a problem, analise it and come up with a holistic solution for it. It is so used to sweeping things under the carpet so much so that when it is confronted with problems, it's knee jerk reaction would be to come up with stop gap measures. In other words, it knows next to nuts about governing!

Dear Ministers, please read this. I am no expert in education but I think I am blessed with a slightly clearer head than all of you put together. The low standard of English among our students is a product of a wrong education policy which started in early 1970s. That was the era when the then  government suddenly thought that efforts must be made to "mendaulatkan Bahasa Melayu/Kebangsaan/Malaysia/Baku/Kebangsaan and back to Melayu" again. Lets not go into the rationale for that policy. Lets just accept the fact that the result of that policy is that most students - and even graduates - nowadays can't even construct a decent sentence in English. Students did not just wake up one morning and found out that they could not speak English. It was a rapid evolution, if ever there was one. (Well, it could be a slow revolution, if you want to be argumentative).

A holistic approach towards  solving this problem would be to start all over again. There is no fast cure -nip-in-the-bud kind of solution. So, what needed to be done was to start training teachers to teach whatever subject in English. Lets say we start doing so next year. It takes 3 years to train the  teachers. So, 3 years from then, we would have to start teaching whatever subjects in English and make English more prominent in the curriculum from the standard 1 intake of that year, namely, 2012. Than we continue doing so until the whole system is filled with such curriculum. That is how we should do it.

Mr Prime Minister, you asked the people to work with you. Here I am. I had just done so. When will I be invited for tea?

1.2 The Unholy Trinity

Of all the news this week, this takes the cake. Muhyidin Yasin, a vice-President of UMNO, has managed to persuade Dr Mahathir to rejoin UMNO. Just how much persuasion did Dr Mahathir, the has-been of UMNO, who had left UMNO 3 months ago in disgust over the ineptitude of the Prime Minister cum current chief-in-command of UMNO and who vowed to never return to UMNO as long as the Prime Minister remains as such, need? Did Muhyiddin have to cry like Rafidah Aziz when Dr Mahathir announced that he had wanted to resign on stage before? Or was Dr Mahathir tied up, beaten like Anwar Ibrahim while he was in detention in 1997 and forced to submission? Or was it all it takes was a simple pact involving Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah challenging Abdullah Ahmad for the UMNO presidency and Muhyiddin challenging Najib Razak for the number 2 spot this December? That's all? Or is there more? Something like Dr Mahathir becoming some sort of a Minister Mentor  or puppet master or whatever?

Dr Mahathir Mohamad. I just love that name. I love that name in the same vein I do the name Mawi. Or George Bush. Oh, Mugabe too. This is the guy who wrote a really rude letter to Tengku Abdul Rahman in 1969 after the 13th May riot. He was then sacked from UMNO. Then he rejoined. IN 1987, he was challenged for the UMNO Presidency by non other than Tengku Razaleigh. He won by a mere 46 votes (if memory serves me right). 12 UMNO members (later reduced to 11 as one withdrew) brought a court action challenging the validity of the voting process as there were representatives from unapproved divisions attending and voting. The younger generation now do not actually know what happened in Court in that UMNO 11 action. Let me tell you what actually happened. You can make up your own mind whether Dr Mahathir loves UMNO, as he says he does, or whether he is just in love with himself. What I am about to tell here are facts, nothing but facts.

The UMNO 11 action was never aimed at obtaining a Court order to declare UMNO illegal. Remember that. The UMNO 11 were just asking the Court to declare the voting process invalid because of the above reason. That was all. The order to declare UMNO illegal was never asked for by the UMNO 11. The UMNO 11 were represented by Raja Aziz Addruse, if I am not mistaken. Dr Mahathir's camp was represented, among others, by Gopal Sri Ram, who was then a practising lawyer. Now he is a Court of Appeal Judge. During the hearing, it was agreed by both sides that there were in fact representatives from unapproved divisions attending the assembly and voting. Under the law, societies, such as UMNO, must be registered. Not only that, the societies' branches or divisions must also be approved by the Registrar of Societies before they could be established. And UMNO at that time had several divisions which were unapproved.

If unapproved branches or divisions existed, the Societies Act provide that not only the unapproved branches or divisions shall be illegal, the society itself shall be illegal. This ridiculous law was enacted by the BN government than to catch PAS, which was known to have many unapproved branches. So, during the hearing, suddenly, and out of the blue, Gopal Sri Ram submitted that UMNO was illegal! It was not Raja Aziz Addruse or the UMNO 11 who said so but it was the lawyer acting for Dr Mahathir's camp who said so! That lawyer must have instruction to say so or otherwise he couldn't have said so.

Raja Aziz was caught by surprise with that submission. I vividly remember he was reportedly saying in the newspaper that that was a "kamikaze defence"! He then reminded the Court that he wasn't asking for UMNO to be declared illegal. But the Court declared UMNO illegal instead. Dr Mahathir, in all his speeches and writings have always blamed the UMNO 11 for causing it to be declared illegal. But it was Counsel acting for his side who submitted that point to the Judge. And it was through his sheer negligence that unapproved UMNO branches/divisions existed and were permitted to send delegates to the assembly to vote.

Who destroyed UMNO? You tell me.

All Dr Mahathir cared about is himself and  his position as the Supreme chief of UMNO, Barisan Nasional and Malaysia. After UMNO was declared illegal, Tengku Abdul Rahman, Rais Yatim (if I am not mistaken) etc out of their love for the party formed a new party called UMNO Malaysia. Of course, the registration of this new party was strangely blocked by the Registrar of Society. The registry comes under the Home Ministry and it does not take any imagination to guess who the Home Minister was at that time. After that, Dr Mahathir formed UMNO Baru and he managed to register it. Strange. The earlier one was rejected and unapproved but the later one was accepted. Funny? Well, you make up your own mind.

Then Dr Mahathir passed a new law which says a new party with a certain percentage of members from an old party can retain the old party's name. Hahah...and so UMNO Baru was back to UMNO. Meanwhile, the rejection of UMNO Malaysia became a Court case. And Dr Mahathir fought that case as if his life depended on it. If he loved UMNO so much, why didn't he work together with Tengku Abdul Rahman, the Father of Malaysia to re-establish the real UMNO? You tell me.

Then he changed UMNO's constitution to make it real difficult for anybody to run for the office of President or Vice-President against the incumbent. This, according to him, was to make sure that only serious contenders would run for such office. Like, wow!

The rest, as they say, is history. Before he retired, he handpicked Abdullah Badawi, in the true tradition of UMNO, the passing-the-baton adat. He thought Abdullah Ahmad would be submissive to him and his ilk. He thought Abdullah Ahmad was a meek lackey who would yield to his whims and fancies. Little did he know what was to come.  Now UMNO has lost all credibility and is destined for  extinction. Who caused it? You tell me.

He now admitted that it was a mistake for him to pass the baton to Abdullah Ahmad. He asked people to oust him from UMNO. When that did not yield result, he left UMNO hoping many others would revolt and follow him. As it turned out, only one of his son and his wife, and Sanusi Junid followed him. Even baby Mukhriz did not do so! He failed. He then complained that the provision in UMNO constitution, which he inserted, makes it difficult for Abdullah Ahmad to be challenged. Irony personified!

Now, he has ganged up with Muhyiddin Yasin and his old nemesis, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah to challenge Abdullah Ahmad.The guile of this man. Would make Nicollo Machiavelli proud, this one.

UMNO Baru/UMNO Lama/UMNO Asal whatever is a sinking ship because of Dr Mahathir. All this void in the party's leadership is caused by him. He never appreciate dissent. Any voice of rationale or dissent would be  perceived as opposition and would quickly be killed off. UMNO "leadership" has always been, under Dr Mahathir, about listening to  and following him and doing what he wants. That creates a big hole in its leadership. When Dr Mahathir left, UMNO was like a headless chicken. That is why UMNO is where it is now. It is not because of Abdullah Ahmad.

But the  again, Dr Mahathir will never ever accept this fact. 

1.3 Transfer of cases

Under the law the Attorney General has the power to transfer any criminal case from the lower Courts to the High Courts. I think the validity of this law has been argued and determined. It is apparently a valid law. This power is exercised at the sole discretion of the AG. He doesn't even need to give reasons for it. All he needs to do was to sign a certificate of transfer and that's it.

Now he wants Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy case to be transferred to the High Court. Apparently because of who Anwar is (whatever that means!) and because of public interest. Well let me tell you something Honourable AG. Nobody gives two hoots about Anwar's sexuality.

Frankly, this absolute power to transfer is unconstitutional, I think. It gives a lot of room for abuse. It even gives the possibility to the AG to choose a Judge. It should be struck down as unconstitutional because it transgresses the very basis of our legal and judicial  system. An accused person is entitled to a fair trial in a Court not of the AG's choosing but in a Court which has the proper jurisdiction over the offence of which he is being accused.

That's my two cents' worth.

Selamat Berpuasa.

"Mubahalah" By Saiful - a fair trial is now impossible?

It is reported by Malaysiakini that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the man accusing Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy, had sworn on the Quran that Anwar Ibrahim had sodomised him without his consent. He had done so at the Federal Teritorry Mosque in Jalan Duta. During a press conference at a hotel on 15th August, a 2 minute video recording of the swearing - which is called "mubahalah" in Islamic term - was shown to reporters.

The process of "mubahalah" is a process whereby a Muslim would swear to the truthfulness of a fact asserted by him or her as true in the name of Allah and in front of the Quran. Muslims believe that if a Muslim dares to go through the process of "mubahalah" knowing that what he or she is asserting is not true, he or she would be a sure candidate for hell in the afterlife and that various hardship would befall him or her even before death. It would not be an understatement to say that "mubahalah" is almost the ultimate test to determine whether somebody is telling the truth or otherwise in Islam. Almost all Muslims would believe in a person who had asserted a fact through this process as no Muslim would even dare to swear by the Quran - let alone in a mosque and in the name of Allah - if he or she is not telling the truth. (In Chinese tradition, we of course would have come across the act of slaughtering a chicken in a temple to prove that one is telling the truth).

Anwar Ibrahim has been accused of sodomy by Saiful and he was in fact charged in the Sessions Court recently. The fact that there is a court proceeding pending against Anwar Ibrahim is therefore beyond any argument. It is last reported by Malaysiakini that the case is now fixed for mention on the 10th September 2008 on which date an application to transfer the case to the High Court would be made by the prosecution.

The question now is whether a fair trial of Anwar Ibrahim is possible in view of Saiful's "mubahalah". It is arguable that a fair trial of the case is now impossible. Should the case be fixed for trial before a Muslim Judge, with all due respect, it will always be in the mind of the Muslim Judge that Saiful, the accuser, had sworn in a mosque in the name of Allah and in front of the Quran. It would be reasonable to assume that the Judge woud find it difficult to disbelieve what Saiful had said in view of him swearing as such. By contrast, Anwar Ibrahim has not done so. It is not unreasonable to conclude that this would lead to an almost incontrovertible "proof" in the mind of any Muslim Judge that Anwar Ibrahim is guilty of sodomising Saiful without his consent.

In addition, I am sure there will be many Muslim witnesses who would appear for the prosecution or the defence. The same belief will always linger in the mind of these Muslim witnesses. These witnesses would include any expert forensic witness and any other witnesses who would appear in Court to support the prosecution's case or the defence. Regardless of who they are - and for which side of the fence they are appearing for - these Muslim witnesses may have trouble to be independent in view of Saiful's action. It would not be unreasonable for any of the Muslim witnesses to now change their intended testimony in view of the "mubahalah" by Saiful. It would not be surprising that even some of the Muslim Counsel appearing in the case to now have doubt about Anwar Ibrahim's innocence!

Under the law, the case is now sub judice (a latin phrase which literally means "under judgement"). When a matter is sub judice, any comment or action which could prejudice the fair trial of the case or which could obstruct the process of justice is prohibited. In my opinion, the "mubahalah" by Saiful is an action which unnecessarily prejudices the fiar trial of the case. In fact, it could be even argued that it amounts to an obstruction of justice in view of the fact that there would be many Muslims who are directly involved in the case.

Any party who makes any statement or commits any act against the principle of sub judice may have commiteed contempt of Court. Anwar Ibrahim's Counsel, I am sure, will now be looking at the matter closely. But if I were one of them, I would be filing contempt proceedings against Saiful by next week!

Is a fair trial of the sodomy case now possible? I will let all of you decide.

The fading dreams - a true story

The turning point in the Malaysian's fight for political emancipation happened last year.

In a way, we must be thankful to the PM for allowing it to happened. Whether such allowance was a deliberate and calculated move, as opposed to a purely accidental one, will remain a mystery, at least for now. However, one fact is clear. Abdullah Ahmad's idea of democracy and his willingness to allow a freer expression of thoughts, whether in the form of speech or physical demonstration, was markedly different from that of Dr Mahathir's.

While Abdullah was more willing to allow a certain degree of latitude for expression of opposing opinions or views, Dr Mahathir would not allow such luxurious "western accessories of democracy" to be even thought of, let alone practised. Before I am accused of being an Abdulphile, I must add that Abdullah's soft approach towards freedom of speech in the initial days of his premiership was perhaps a conscious populist decision which was fueled by the euphoria of his historic landslide victory in the previous general election. I must also add that this "soft" approach has now vanished and replaced by a more "hardcore and traditional" approach, an approach which would make Dr Mahathir smile with pride.

Four years is not a long time in a political time scale. However, if we accept that time is a great healer, than we must also accept that time may also be a great destroyer. The biggest mistake Abdullah had made in his political career is to absolutely miss the significance of and the underlying current which precipitated his victory in the 2004 general election. For the record, he led the BN to a record 90.4% seats in the Parliament with a popular votes of 4.4 million representing 63.9% of the total votes. Out of that, UMNO garnered 2.4 million popular votes representing a staggering 36% of the total votes. The number of seats occupied by the BN increased by 51 from the previous election.

The achievement in the 2004 general election lulled Abdullah, and the BN, into a deep slumber, a slumber which they would ultimately be rudely awaken from, on March 8th this year. Abdullah failed to analise the reasons for his historic win. It was the first general election after Dr Mahathir had stepped down from the UMNO Presidency as well as Malaysia's Premiership. Dr Mahathir was not a likable person and leader. He personified totalitarianism and to describe his period of premiership as a period of totalitarian democracy would be flatteringly kind. If not due to the fact that that term is so widely used, I would even call the term an oxymoron-ic term. How could a democracy be a totalitarian? Or vice versa?

What Abdullah had failed to realise after the 2004 general election was the fact that his and his party's victory was due to the people's perception that he represented a new political order to Malaysia, a political order where Malaysians would finally achieve a certain degree of political emancipation, where opposing views would be respected, where opponents would be engaged in a civil manner, where tyranny would be banished, where the government would finally be accountable and responsible for their actions. Abdullah, in 2004, embodied the crystallisation of a Malaysian political dream, a Messiah of democracy, heaven sent. It was a result which belied the fact that Malaysians looked at him as a Mr Clean; Mr Religious and therefore Mr Upright, morally, religiously and universally; Mr Gentleman and Mr Right. His victory was not due to the acceptance, by the people, of the BN's policies. Nor was it a sign of Ketuanan Melayu. Or of the New Economics Policy or the continuation of the same. His victory lies in the fact that Malaysians finally felt unshackled from the egomaniacal grip and tyrannical antics of the previous Prime Ministers and his cohorts. That was the reasons for Abdullah's victory. He, his people and advisers together with his party FAILED to realise this.

He instead drowned in what he believed as a populist victory. So did his party. Almost as fast as his popularity had risen, he descended into at first, what was perceived as mediocrity, which later turned into a streak of self indulgences, self interest and self rule. Malaysians were disappointed and dejected as we realised that Abdullah, and his party, were slowly but very surely morphing into the anti-Christ of Malaysian politics. Visions of Dr Mahathir and his totalitarian approaches and behaviours loomed large. Allegations of corruptions, cronyism, arrogance, lack of transparency and accountability and sheer mediocrity surfaced. Once again, the ghosts of totalitarian revisited Malaysians. And we fought back.

The difference between the people's fight for democracy in Abdullah's post 2004 election and Dr Mahathir's 22 year rule is only one. Communication. The cyber world, and to a certain extent, and the advent in telecommunication services, provide a platform for Malaysians to share information and news in an effective, fast and cheap way. Ironically, it was Dr Mahathir's government which was responsible for these amenities.

The Lawyer's Walk for Justice in Putrajaya was, to me, a realisation by Malaysians that all of us must wake up from our deep political slumber and fight for our rights. It was to be a catalysts for people's power in Malaysia and for this, I salute all those who walked the short distance from the Palace of Justice to the PM's office that day. To paraphrase Neil Armstrong's famous words, it was a short distance for Malaysians, but a giant leap for Malaysia!

The BERSIH rally ensued. And then the HINDRAF rally. The battlegrounds were being drawn. The war fronts were being marked.

Here comes the second mistake made by Abdullah and his government. Probably misunderstanding the victory in the 2004 general election as a mandate for him and his government to govern in whatever manner he likes, his response to these events could have very well be taken from Dr Mahathir's lexicon of good governance. The Bar Council was labeled as behaving like the opposition parties, said Nazri Aziz. That of course presupposes that being an opposition is not good and that oppositions are also not a good thing. The BERSIH rally was met with water cannon and laced acidic sprays. It was also glossed over by the mainstream media which reported that it was only attended by 4000 people, probably mistaking the number of the policemen for participants! Nazri, in addition, screamed that the participants are "cowards"! Abdullah's spin doctor even had the temerity to say that people should not rally and that if "they" (the word of course signifies that the participants are people belonging to an unwanted group as opposed to "us", the good group) wanted changes, "they" should show it by voting for a government change in an election. That was a challenge to vote for a change in the election. They must be regretting that challenge now. The response to HINDRAF was even harder. The ISA was used to arrest and detain the leaders till this very day. Images of the infamous Operasi Lalang haunted the Malaysians. Here is the man, in whom Malaysians rested the hope of a political empowerment, at last showing his true colour, a colour which is not dissimilar to that of his predecessor's.

That fueled the people's anger. And on March 8th this year, a lesson was taught. But it is not a lesson learnt, as recent events would show.

SILLY QUESTION!

Syed Hamid Albar asked Anwar Ibrahim what he (Anwar) is afraid of by refusing to give his DNA samples to the police.

"Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim should not worry about giving his DNA samples if he were interested to seek the truth behind the sodomy allegations against him, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.

“DNA does not lie. Give your sample and let the expert read it,” Syed Hamid said.

He said the PKR adviser could have given the sample at the hospital in the presence of his own doctor if he was afraid of fabrication." (NST - today - 17.7.2008)

Well my friend, Malaysiakini.com also today reported that despite being arrested by 10 masked men, bundled up into a highly tinted vehicle, questioned for 5 hours, detained overnight where he was made to sleep with common criminals on the cement floor despite knowing of his back condition, Anwar Ibrahim is still not given a copy of or even shown the police report made against him by the boy whose anus was famously alleged to have been poked by Anwar. Khairy Jamaluddin seems to know a thing or two about that particular report as he seems to know beforehand that the police wanted to have Anwar's DNA samples. But neither Anwar, the accused, nor any of his family member nor his legal team know anything about it.

May I ask why? Is there such a report in the first place? Or was it a report with blank spots for the police to fill in as the "very professional investigations" are carried out?

Syed Hamid Albar. You have caused the city dwellers to suffer with traffic jam this week. You have caused some students to miss their CLP examinations this week. All because you have intelligence report that there was going to be a demonstration in KL which intelligence report turned out to be several SMS which the police had read. And now you are asking Anwar what he is afraid of? May I ask you, in relation to the police report:

Am I a moron? Or are you?

i Am BoRed...

Bala oh Bala,

kenaper engko camtu

camner aku tak camtu

aku ditimpa bala

bala oh bala

kenaper engko timper Bala

camner aku tak timpa Bala

Bala carik aku

Bala oh Bala

kenaper ko carik bala

bukan aku yang carik bala

bala yang ikut aku

bala oh bala

kenaper plak engko ikut Bala

camner aku tak ikut Bala

Bala suker panggil aku

Bala oh Bala

mengaper engko sker panggil bala

bukan aku sker panggil bala

orang panggil aku Bala

Orang oh orang

kenaper ko sker panggil Bala

camner kiter tak panggil Bala

itu dah memang namer dier

memang namer dier

memang namer dier...

a very big storm in a very small espresso cup

I am talking about the Statutory Declaration dated 18.6.2008 by Raja Petra bin Raja Kamarudin which was published by Malaysiakini on 20.6.2008. It was "mindboggling", as Beh Lih Yi of Malaysiakini described it. Reactions from the netizens were swift. Some believed the truth of the contents and some of course laughed it off as another stunt by Raja Petra.

The Attorney General quickly said that it amounts to criminal defamation. He then lodged a police report against Raja Petra. Malik Imtiaz, in his ever so precise observation of the whole episode expressed his concern at the actions being taken by the Attorney General as it seemed that "the focus of the exercise will be Raja Petra rather than the substance of his allegations in a manner reminiscent of the Irene Fernandez affair", to quote him.

Elsewhere, Karpal Singh urged the Attorney General to investigate the claim made by Raja Petra in the SD. Lim Kit Siang even moved the Parliament to discuss the same. Needless to say, the Speaker of the House found there was nothing to discuss.

The mainstream media of course went to sleep and was loudly snoring, in the blissful, albeit wishful, thoughts that the Malaysian public are ignorant of the whole thing. When the matter was reported about 2 days later, of course, the name of the characters in the SD were blanked out. Rosmah, who was at the centre of the whole thing, was only referred to as "the wife of a VIP" or in Malay, "isteri seorang kenamaan". Contrast that to any guy who is caught for shoplifting. The news will read "Ali bin Sudin, aged 34, from Flat Bahagia, Cheras, was yesterday caught for shoplifting"! Hmmm...the Malaysian mainstream media, love them, hate them, but you will surely be able to live without them.

Najib Razak, Abdullah Ahmad, Khairy Jamaluddin, the characters mentioned in the SD stayed mum for 5 days. Yesterday, they all came out with guns blazing to deny the contents of the SD. 5 days. FIVE days. My cat had bolted out of the house and went to Putrajaya and back. That was how long they took to come out and deny it. Dr Mahathir, in a rare display of public agreement with Abdullah Ahmad, has reportedly said that Raja Petra's accusation was a political ploy.

The police, in the meantime, had stated that they would be questioning Raja Petra. Whether that has been done at the time of writing is unknown. Najib meanwhile was quoted by Malaysiakini as saying that Rosmah had been questioned by the police. Today, mainstream newspapers screamed out the denial by Abdullah Ahmad and Najib Razak.Total lies, they say.

Everybody who is somebody seems to be hot and bothered. They jumped. Some even flipped. It seems that all rationale has been lost. Nobody seems to have any intelligence. All are emotional. A very big storm indeed. Over nothing.

The SD proves, if ever it proves anything, that Malaysians love rumours and unsubstantiated claims. But that is all to be expected in a country where freedom of speech and media are an alien concept although its Federal Constitution guarantees the same. Malaysians can't get accurate reporting of events from the media and so nobody is to blame when rumours are regarded as not true until they are expressly denied. That is our fate, fellow Malaysians. It is sad, I know, but that is the truth. So life goes on.

Has anybody asked what is the probative value of the SD. Zero. That is the answer. What the deponent (Raja Petra) is saying in the SD is that he was reliably informed by someone or some people that Rosmah, together with 2 other persons, were present at the crime scene. He also said he was reliably informed that, among others, a military intelligence report on the matter was given to Abdullah Ahmad, who then gave the same to Khairy Jamaludin for safe keeping. The said report was also given to a Malay Ruler.

That's it. He did not reveal who his informer is. He did not even say that he believes his informer other than to say that he had been "reliably" informed. To be "reliably informed" is one thing but to believe an information is another thing altogether.

The position under the law is simple. This is hearsay. Raja Petra did not and does not have personal knowledge of the matters he was alluding to in the SD. He is relying on an information. Therefore that piece of evidence is hearsay. Being hearsay, it will not be admissible in a court of law for the purpose of proving the fact that Rosmah was at the crime scene or the fact relating to the existence of the military report.

However, although it is hearsay, it could be admitted by the Court to prove Raja Petra's belief in those matters. But what Raja Petra's belief is not relevant. An irrelevant evidence is also not admissible in Court. I may say that I believe Altantuya killed herself. I can swear 4 Statutory Declaration to that effect. But my opinion or belief is not relevant. Because they don't matter. The same goes with Raja Petra's belief. It is not relevant and therefore not admissible. And so we are back to square one.

The question is, why the hoo-haa over something which is so irrelevant and unsubstantiated? And to the Honourable Attorney General and the IGP, why are you all investigating Raja Petra for what he believes? What makes his belief so relevant?

Or is there something more to all these? One wonders.

Demahacracy - the warped democracy

 

Shortly  after I published my open reply to Dr Mahathir on the Salleh Abas saga, Justice Ian Chin made his shocking revelation about how Dr Mahathir had allegedly threatened Judges at a conference. Justice Ian Chin further alleged that he was sent to a "boot camp".  According to His Lordship, the boot camp was without doubt  "an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.

Dr Mahathir of course denied the accusation. A startling revelation however came out from his denial. He somewhat candidly revealed that Judges were actually made to attend "courses on Tatanegara or National Creed at work camps". For ease of reference, the followings are what he actually said:

"As for the boot camp, our military forces may have it. But what we did have were courses on "Tata Negara" or "National Creed" at work camps. At such courses the speakers try to explain Malaysia's political system with particular reference to the BN concept, ethics and moral values and democracy in Malaysia. Participants included civil servants, corporate leaders, politicians and university staff. I suppose judges also attended. For three to five days the participants stayed at the camps and followed certain programs. This included getting up very early in the morning (for prayers for Muslims), physical exercises and many hours of lectures. One of the chores was to wash your own dirty plates after a simple meal. When I gave talks at these work camps I too wash my dirty dishes. It was part of leadership by example. Thousands of people from all walks of life attended these work camps. There were hardly any complaints. I was told by a judge who was in the same batch as Chin J that he absconded before the course was over. Perhaps he did not like getting up early and washing his own dirty plates".

How very interesting. I have hinted in my open reply to Dr Mahathir that he had at least misunderstood the doctrine of separation of powers. To ask Judges to attend a work camp together with civil servants, corporate leaders, politicians and university staffs where they are made to hear lectures on "Malaysia's political system with particular reference to the BN concept, ethics and moral values and democracy in Malaysia" is demeaning to say the least. Quite why Judges needed to be lectured on "BN's concept, ethics and moral values" at a work camp together with civil servants and others is just beyond me. Call it by any other name, but to me, it sounds like an indoctrination to the ways of the BN in general, and UMNO in particular. To lump the Judges in a basket together with civil servants is in itself a display of complete lack of understanding, if not education, of the doctrine of separation of powers and democracy in general. In fact, it is arguably contemptuous of our judicial system.

I can imagine days will come when Judges are made to attend "work camp" organised by Bank Negara together with CEOs of CIMB, Maybank, Public Bank et al where they will be lectured on "Malaysia's banking system with particular reference to BN concept, ethics and moral values and Islamic banking in Malaysia". Or how about a work camp organised by Polis Di Raja Malaysia where Judges will be lectured on "Malaysia's detention without trial law with particular reference to BN concept, ethics and moral values". 

To make it more interesting, let's have a role reversal. May I suggest that the Chief Justice invite the cabinet Ministers, politicians (present ones and also retired ones), UMNO leaders (present and past), corporate leaders and civil servants to a work camp at Istana Keadilan (ooops...sorry, it should be Palace Of Justice) where they could be lectured on "Malaysia's democracy system with particular reference to the doctrine of separation of powers and the concept of ethical leadership and moral values in government practices". I am sure Dr Mahathir would be pleased to attend and learn something entirely new. Or would he abscond after the first day?

A couple of days later, a former Supreme Court Judge, Azmi Kamarudin, who was one of the Judges who were suspended by Dr Mahathir in the 1988 judiciary debacle, was quoted by Malaysiakini as saying that Dr Mahathir had wanted to control the judiciary. He was reported as saying:

"I felt that he wanted to rule like a dictator. He (Mahathir) was already the head of legislature (and) he wanted the judiciary to be under his control as well. That was his intention."

The ex Supreme Court Judge also said that Dr Mahathir had wanted to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution. For the benefit of readers who are not familiar with the Federal Constitution, Article 121 of the Federal Constitution deals with the establishment of the Courts in Malaysia. It also spells out the powers of the Courts in general term. I will touch on this later in this post.

Meanwhile, Salleh Abas, while accepting the ex gratia payment from the present administration, in an obvious reference to the 1988 judicial debacle, said in a video interview with Malaysiakini, that "if you destroy the judiciary, you destroy democracy, and if you destroy democracy, you usher in a dictatorship, clothed with the cloth of rule of law and justice, but in reality, it is like a hungry tiger, clothed in a lamb skin".

Dr Mahathir was obviously unhappy with the statements made by Azmi and Salleh. Of course he had to response. In true Mahathir fashion, he let go a reply which is as ridiculous as it is ludicrous. According to him, the Judges were bribed to say bad things about him!

Well, I should have prefaced this post by saying that I am not paid by any party to write this article. Just for the avoidance of any doubt.

Anyway, what can we expect from Dr Mahathir other than senseless vitriolic nowadays. The man is desperate for support for his own twisted agenda. He has tried criticising and he failed. He has tried to appear at the UMNO General Assembly last year but he was thwarted, wrongly or rightly. He has left UMNO altogether and he failed to get any supports except from his wife and one of his sons. Even his own son, Mukhriz, defies him. And now he  tries blogging. From the comments he is getting, we all could conclude that he is rather loved by his readers. In fact, "love" is a understatement. "Idolise" is more like it. And guess what, he is also on Facebook nowadays. Like, oh wow!

And so, it would appear, at least in Mahathirsville that Azmi Kamaruddin and Salleh Abas have been bribed by the present government to say bad things about him. But history never lies. History is replete with facts. And facts are undeniable. Because they are there for all to see. Let's all of us look at the facts and decide whether Dr Mahathir and his government had in fact amended Article 121 of the Federal Constitution. And if so, what was, and still is, the nett result of such amendment?

Article 121 of the Federal Constitution deals with the establishment of the Court in Malaysia. Not too long ago, in a land where everybody knows their respective rights, Article 121 used to look like this:

Article 121:

(1)     Subject to Clause (2) the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested into High Courts of co- ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely-

(a) one of the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principle registry in Kuala Lumpur; and

(b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Borneo and shall have its principle registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may determine; (emphasis added by me).

Note above that the original Article 121 vests judicial powers with the High Court. That means judicial powers is within the realm of the High Courts and this is provided for by the Federal Constitution, which is the mother of all the laws in our country. A part of the judicial powers which is very important in any democratic country within the Commonwealth is the power of judicial review. This is the power of the High Courts to review any decision taken by the government against its citizen. There are 4 powers of judicial review, namely, certiorari (the power to reverse and quash any government decision); mandamus (the power to compel the government to do certain act); prohibition (the power to stop the government from doing certain act) and habeas corpus (the power to order the production and release of a citizen who has been wrongly detained). It doesn't take a genius to note that these powers are essential in order the check any exercise of powers or abuse thereof by any government. Without this powers, the government would be in a position to do anything it likes. There wouldn't be any check and balances. This is definitely the bulwark of any democracy.

Even in non-Commonwealth country, judicial powers are vested in the Courts. America for example has the same provision in Article iii of its Constitution. It provides as follows:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish… The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".

In my open reply to Dr Mahathir, I had referred to the case of the 2 journalists of the Asian Wall Street Journal, whose work permits were canceled by Dr Mahathir because he was obviously not happy with what they were writing about him and his government. The 2 journalists filed for judicial review. The Supreme Court held that Dr Mahathir's cancellation of their work permits were illegal and void. That case is an illustration of how the Courts exercised its judicial powers to check the exercise of powers by the government (or in legal parlance, the executive).

Dr Mahathir of course did not like this power very much. During Operasi Lalang for example, the Court had also issued a writ of habeas corpus for Karpal Singh to be produced in Court and released. Dr Mahathir of course viewed this as a transgression by the judiciary of his executive powers when what the Court was merely doing was to carry out its Constitutional functions of providing check and balance against the powers of the executive. This Dr Mahathir did not like one bit.

He, or rather, his government, amended Article 121 of the Federal Constitution to achieve his control over the judiciary. Article 121 now reads like this:

Article 121:

1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely -

(a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Malaya as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine; and

(b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may determine;

(c)(Repealed),

and such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law and the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law. (emphasis added by me).

So, it can be seen  that the Courts  now only have powers as specified by the federal law. Judicial powers are no more vested in the Courts. What it simply means is that the Courts now do not have the power of judicial review unless it is specifically said so by any law passed by the parliament (or the legistlature).  And who controlled the parliament during Dr Mahathir's rule? I will not waste my time in answering that question.

So, Dr Mahathir and his government controlled the legislature. Dr Mahathir and his party also controlled the executive. And the Federal Constitution was amended to provide that the Courts only have such powers as shall be conferred by the legislature. So, indirectly, the Courts can only do things which are allowed to be done by Dr Mahathir and his government who occupy the legistlature.

What is that called? It is called Demahacracy.