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.

 

 

 

 

"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.

skirting the issue - the latest court of appeal decision

Malaysian Insider reported yesterday about the Court of Appeal's (the CoA) majority decision to dismiss a woman's appeal against the High Court's decision refusing to grant her application for a declaration that she has a right to renounce Islam. The CoA apparently, in a 2-1 decision, decided to dismiss her appeal because the name appearing in her originating summons "no longer existed".

This is yet another shallow minded, convenient and fearful approach taken by the second highest court of the land when being confronted by matters involving conversion from Islam by anybody who had earlier professed to be a Muslim. Rather than seizing the opportunity to make a fully reasoned decision by confronting the issue at hand heads on, the CoA would rather hide behind trivial technicalities as if procedures are made to hamper, rather than aid, litigants.

I have lost count on how many such cases have come up for appeals in the CoA or even in the highest Courts of the land, the Federal Courts. Not a single one has been decided on its merit. The most that has been said in these cases is that the matter is within the purview of the Syariah Court and thus the civil courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain the cases. Since when the Syariah Courts have jurisdiction to decide on a Constitutional issue is quite beyond my remembrance.

In this latest episode, the woman had used both her Muslim and her Chinese names in her summons. The purpose of stating one's name on a summons or in any legal documentation is to identify oneself. In the olden days in England, one did not only have to state one's name but also was required to state one's address and/or profession. That is solely for the purpose of identification so that a Robin Hood of Nottingham Forrest would not be mistaken for a Robin Hood of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The practice of stating one's name and address continues to this very day because as we all know, there is no such thing as an identity card over there.

That practice was adopted here. Thus, one has to state one's name and address in any summons and also affidavit. However, our Courts take the matter so seriously so much so that there are Judges who dismiss cases or reject affidavits just because the address is not stated or the name is not spelt correctly. In doing that, the Judges have failed to appreciate the rationale for such procedural rule (I would even say they don't actually know the rationale). They also forget that in Malaysia, an identification could be specifically done just by stating the Identity Card number! Thus, the rule requiring that one's name and address or even profession be stated must be taken in that perspective.

One of the CoA Judges was in the case yesterday was reported as saying "the question before us is who is appearing in the appeal? Is it the Chinese name or the Muslim name?". First of all, the one appearing before the CoA was not the "name" but the PERSON being represented by her Counsel. Second of all, her Counsel had already clarified that the name appearing on the Court papers was the name of the PERSON appealing. So, what was the issue? Where was the confusion? It also speaks volume of the quality of the AG Chambers' advocacy skills when all they could muster in such an important case was an objection of this nature.

The truth is that the real issue at hand is the proverbial hot potato which no one would like to handle. The name or names was just a convenient excuse to pass the buck. One wonders why the CoA did not seize the opportunity to decide on a very importand and almost a cardinal Constitutional issue. After all, the issue is one of fundemental liberties of Malaysians as provided by the Federal Constitution and not about Islam. It so incidental that in this case the religion being professed is Islam but this does not detract from the constitutional issue which begs to be argued and determined. The Syariah Courts clearly do not have jurisdiction over this matter.

Malaysia must be the only Commenwealth country where a Constitutional law issue is being dismissed by the Courts because the litigant has used a wrong name!

That's the inconvenient truth of it all.

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?

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.

 

 

The Tun Salleh Saga - an open reply to Dr Mahathir

Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh Saga. To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you have obviously regained your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding of the Royal Commission on the Linggam tape.

I must confess that I was not moved to post anything about the Tun Salleh issue as everybody and his dog has apparently written about it. However, after having read your latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write this reply, just to put things on record and proper perspective.

It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of manipulation. When everything else fails, what better than to stoke racial sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in Johore Bahru recently when you quite irresponsible pointed out that the Malays are the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to continue. You than quickly followed it up in Japan when you reminded the Malays to unite and be strong because, according to you, other races are now asking for many things and questioning Malay rights. Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" would normally be a cliche to repeat, but in your case, I would make an exception. Just change the word "patriotism" to "racialism" and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.

When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim, I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal. How very convenient of you DrM. Of course you had conveniently overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice as the then Prime Minister. And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth, according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas be removed because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining about His Majesty's renovation work. So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask?

That is the first question which came across my mind while reading your post. The second question is this. Since when have you become a royalist so much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The King had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a letter over some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it up with a tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal Constitution? You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very same Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the powers of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the tribunal at the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the fearless Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for Royal assents to any bill of law before it could effectively be the law of the country by amending the Federal Constitution, had suddenly be so subservient to the King in relation to the sacking of Salleh Abas?

The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is of course not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not charged over THAT letter? If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writin such a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY? If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty, why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King? W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter has appeared and become an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during the Linggam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last week about the same letter? Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks. Coincidently, I wrote.

By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your beligerent attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state mass media, the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and the Malays Rulers. The whole propaganda machines were used to smear the King and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed in newspapers. Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be. And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas? Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody else who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?

DrM, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!

You then mention in your blog that it was your opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord President who was photographed with a certain lawyer oversea? Wouldn't that constitute a wrongdoing? That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a wrongdoing which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?

You now charged, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented Dr M. I remember clearly in one speech, you liken the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would now say it was all in jest. Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms, namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase "check and balance" was missing from your administrative dictionary which was probably reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.

Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to take away "judicial powers" from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M, that Malaysia, would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth ( I say Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems) whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was, and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy.

Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!

You some what denies that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a balance of probability, otherwise. Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this character later in this post. On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended, Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the haste? Nobody knows. That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas. How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond me or my intelect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this fact Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post. I am sure.

If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?

Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because, among others, of his bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal. He said he was taking notes during the said meeting. While he could remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during the meeting when asked by the tribunal members. If he was so sure that he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely, partial and momentary lapse of memory.

On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in your blog Dr M? And let the people who read it to judge the matter after having been fed with al relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own purpose and objectives.

I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time form me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have you forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?

Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the King dated 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never mentioned in any of the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary. I will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter. But what Dr M had failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on 25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that of Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal. Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly, how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to understand it, let alone grasp it.

Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of separation of powers. Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of course you then had to accuse "certain Judges" as interfering with politics. You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying down while waiting for pension?

You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration system. AS much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the attacks leveled against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him to lodge a police report over the matter?

By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politicain is trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you of course forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the law along Islamic legal principles with against the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published by you in your blog?

Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim or Abdullah Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story. And let the people, and history, be the judge.

Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)? The beauty is that it is a set of law common to all the people. That means, when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would know. The common people. Me, and your readers.

Kind regards,

Art Harun

Feature on Toilets in the Malaysian Courts

High Court of Malaya at Johor Bahru
Ground Floor, February 2008

The toilet in the ground floor of the High Court of Malaya at Johor Bahru is an excellent example of the sort of toilets one has to become accustomed to in the Courts of Malaysia. One will notice the narrowness of the toilet which is deliberate to ensure that networking and sociability are promoted in the toilet (but not amongst the homosexual because then they will have sex in there. Toilets are not for homosexual sexual encounters although heterosexual ones are encouraged especially to be filmed and thereafter uploaded for everybody else's amusement and collection).

It is also mandatory for most toilets not to have any tissue paper for one's convenience such as wiping one's hand or on occasion one's arse (because most people in Malaysia use water only ... Note: We at Navel Gazing encourage the use of tissue whether or not you use water or acid on your monkey ass). Do not be fooled by the toilet tissue dispenser - it's there to make up the budget only. The plastic stick that keeps the tissue there is never supplied even after certificate of fitness is issued for the building.

There are also no plastic seats for you to sit on the toilet, which means that whether you get a squat toilet or the sitting one, if you're doing the big one, you still have to squat on either. Navel Gazing however cautions that only those with an excellent sense of balance to squat on the sitting toilet and strongly suggests that if you have to lose balance to do so only before or after the expelling of the faeces takes place. Otherwise it can be very messy and... smelly. So rubber soled shoes are strongly recommended.

You will notice a black hose on the left wall of the toilets. If you are lucky, water will issue forth for you to clean yourself up after answering nature's call. However, if you are lucky and intend to wash your arse with it, Navel Gazing strongly recommends you do not put it too close to your arse because when you do that, the probabilities that the force of water will be very strong and hence painful would shoot up exponentially (pun intended). Please use toilets in the Malaysian courts. They are a cultural institution of the Malaysian courts that is not often discussed in the reported (and unreported) cases which is surprising since there is a lot of faecal matter reported in the local legal journals.

Finally, there is no air conditioning in the toilet and the sole source of ventilation is the crack between the door entrance to the toilet door and the floor which is about 10 cm. Sniffing before entering the toilet is therefore strongly encouraged. If you cannot take the faecal smells and heat then get out of the toilet. You don't deserve to be there.