NGOs: AG must explain ignoring rulers in leap toward dictatorship

Attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali must explain the reason for ignoring concerns raised by the rulers over the National Security Council (NSC) Bill, said a coalition of NGOs.

This was after the legislation was gazetted as law on Tuesday without royal assent.

"The attorney-general had confirmed there were no amendments to the bill despite promising scrutiny of some provisions after his meeting with the rulers in February.

"It is now incumbent on the attorney-general to disclose if any provisions were scrutinised at all and the reasons why no amendments were made nevertheless," said #TakNakDiktator representative Ambiga Sreenevasan in a media statement today.

On Feb 17, the Conference of Rulers asked that the NSC Bill, which would give the National Security Council headed by the prime minister emergency-like powers, to be refined.

However, according to the national gazette, the NSC Bill was automatically assented the following day on Feb 18 under Article 66(4A) of the Federal Constitution.

The provision granted automatic assent to any legislation if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong does not provide his assent within 30 days from when the legislation is presented to him.

"Whilst this is constitutionally permissible, serious questions arise as to why the government acted so hastily and in defiance of the concerns raised by the Conference of Rulers particularly as the bill directly impinges on the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

"More so, as they have acted in complete disregard of the valid concerns raised by the public with regard to the ramifications of this act," said Ambiga.

'A leap towards dictatorship'

Ambiga said Putrajaya's move to ignore the Conference of Rulers' concerns should trigger alarm bells.

"In this exercise, this government has behaved as if they are accountable to no one, neither the rulers nor the people.

"The fact that there were no amendments to the bill is proof of this. If this is not a dictatorship, then what is?" she said.

She warned that the NSC Act represented an extremely dangerous step for Malaysia as it concentrated extraordinary powers in the hands of the prime minister and NSC.

"No person or entity should have such absolute and unfettered powers. Concentration of power leads to abuse, particularly in times of political crisis.

"The NSC law represents a leap towards a dictatorship and a military-police state with little or no safeguards," she said.

She added that the law was unconstitutional and a grave abuse of power.

"Malaysia does not need such a law which goes against all principles of democracy and undermines the rule of law in the country," she said.

The #TakNakDiktator coalition comprises Amnesty International Malaysia, Bersih, Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism, National Human Rights Society, Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia (Ikram), Institut Rakyat, Lawyers for Liberty, Society for the Promotion of Human Rights and Suaram.

Mahathir never interfered in my work, says ex-IGP

Former inspector-general of police Rahim Noor has claimed that Dr Mahathir Mohamad never interfered in his work, despite allegations of the former premier having a tight control on key agencies and institutions during his tenure.

According to Rahim, he felt comfortable working with Mahathir because the latter was a professional.

“For 10 years that I was director of the Special Branch and IGP, I always felt at ease.

“There was no interference or disruptions, Mahathir understood that what I was doing was for the country and security (purposes),” he was quoted as saying by Sinar Harian.

Rahim said this included the infamous Operasi Lalang as well, which saw scores of opposition leaders and activists detained under the now defunct Internal Security Act.

In early 2014, Mahathir had denied that he was the home minister at the time, adding that he was also abroad during the 1987 crackdown.

Following this, DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang, who was among those arrested, accused the former premier of suffering from “selective amnesia” and attempting to disavow his role in the incident.

Mahathir later admitted responsibility, although he denied masterminding the arrests, which critics claimed was an abuse of power to silence dissent.

“Even if the decision was made by somebody else, it is in the cabinet and I accept responsibility. What we did was to ensure stability and peace in this country,” he had said.

Mahathir and Lim have since buried the hatchet and joined hands in the Citizens’ Declaration against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

Meanwhile, Rahim, who was appointed police chief in 1994, was forced to resign five years later after being found guilty of assaulting ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim in custody.

When Anwar appeared in court with a black eye then, Mahathir, who sacked him in 1998, had speculated that the injury could have been self-inflicted to gain public sympathy.

“It's not impossible because he will get plenty of mileage if he showed he was abused by police,” he had said.

Other panellists at the forum titled ‘Siapa lebih berkuasa: Pentadbir atau ahli politik? (Who is more powerful: administrators or politicians?’) included former Dewan Rakyat speaker Adam Kadir and former Malaysia Airlines chief executive officer Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman.

Former top cop lodges second police report against AG

Former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim has lodged a second police report against attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali, alleging Apandi gave false evidence in clearing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak of wrongdoing in the RM2.6 billion deposited into Najib’s personal bank accounts.

The police report was lodged last Friday, and it comes after Apandi, the highest legal officer in the country, having not shown any evidence, such as bank statements, to prove the claim that the money came from a Saudi Arabia prince and that US$620 million, and not US$650 million, had been returned to the prince by Najib.

Mat Zain said there were conflicting or confusing material facts if one were to compare the flowchart of the transactions and the statement of the transactions obtained and reproduced by international and local media, such as The Wall Street Journal, together with Apandi's statement.

He gave an example of where the flowchart specifically showed the transfer of US$681 million from Tanore Finance Corp, through Falcon Private Bank, Singapore branch, to Najib's private account, that was made between March 21, 2013, and March 25, 2013.

However, Mat Zain in his police report, said Apandi at the press conference in clearing Najib, had said the deposits took place between March 22, 2013, and April 10, 2013, with these dates being different from the flowchart

“The detailed and accurate transaction of the sender, the bank that sent the funds, the recipient, amount and date as well as time of the deposit and withdrawal, can be seen through the bank statements. The AG has the right and power to check on the statements.”

“The flowchart shows the transfer back of US$650 million on Aug 30, 2013, from Najib's personal account to the original sender through Falcon Private Bank, Singapore branch, which is owned by Tanore Finance Corporation. On that same day, Najib closed his AmPrivate Banking account,” Mat Zain said.

“However, Apandi's press statement said a fund of US$620 million was transferred. There is a difference of US$30 million, or roughly, close to RM100 million. The chart shows US$650 million returned to Tanore Finance Corporation but Apandi said it was US$620 million, without specifically saying how it was returned,” the former top investigator said.

A high-profile investigator

Mat Zain, well known for being the investigating officer of the black-eye incident on Anwar Ibrahim in 1998, and other high profile financial cases, further said there were also questions as to whether Najib obtained Bank Negara's approval to transfer the huge sums of money outside the country.

Last Friday, Special Affairs Department director-general Puad Zarkashi claimed that Najib had obtained Bank Negara approval to bring in the US$681 million, which has introduced another version to the RM2.6 billion saga.

Mat Zain said Apandi verified that the donor was an Arab prince, who is the son of a Saudi king, and not the Saudi Arabian king or the Saudi government.

In his last police report against Apandi last March, Mat Zain debunked the AG's claim that a Saudi prince was the donor, as only four Saudi Arabian princes have made the Forbes 2013 rich Arabs list - Prince Alwaleed Talal who then had a reported fortune of US$20 billion; Prince Sultan Mohammed with US$2.6 billion; Prince Abdullah Musaad with US$144.5 million; and Prince Mutaib Abdulaziz with US$110.1 million.

Of the four, only Prince Mutaib is the son of a king, but his US$110.1 million net worth is far less than the US$681 million donated to Najib.

Pulau Batu Puteh analogy

Using the Pulau Batu Puteh case as an analogy, where Singapore in November 2007 proved to the International Court of Justice that the Malaysian team used a doctored picture from a blog to show the disputed island's proximity to Johor, Mat Zain said the same thing could have been done here.

He said Apandi should come out with an in-and-out flowchart on the US$681 million, which must be verified by AmPrivate Banking as well, to correctly show that the fund came from the Arab prince.

“Apandi's inability to submit such documents has resulted in public suspicion over the credibility and transparency of his statement. It further strengthens the trust in the chart coming out from WSJ, which other news portals have also carried.

“Based on the above, it shows that the flowchart produced by WSJ is more credible, if compared with Apandi's statement. If the chart is false or confusing, the Money Authority of Singapore would have taken action on WSJ or other parties that are named, so as to safeguard the credibility of its financial institutions,” Mat Zain said in his police report.

This was more so, the former top cop said, because the transfer of US$681 million and the remittance of US$650 million were done through Falcon Private Bank, Singapore.

Based on this information, and read together with his previous report, Mat Zain says there are grounds for a detailed investigation to be made against Apandi for falsifying evidence with his statement on the RM2.6 billion alleged donation.

“The investigations can be done under Section 193 of the Penal Code, as was with his previous report,” he told Malaysiakini when met recently.

Mat Zain also pointed out that the Pulau Batu Puteh doctored photograph was revealed when then prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, was in Singapore, attending the Asean-European Union meeting. No response was given to this.

The ICJ delivered its decision on May 23, 2008 and the former top cop said that if Malaysia wanted to appeal, it still has two more years to do so.

Johor Sultan Ibrahim Mahmud Iskandar had on May 29, 2014, said the state wants the disputed island back and Menteri Besar Khaled Nordin said the state has set up a committee to study this.

Altantuya case can only be reopened if there are other suspects, says former A-G

The Altantuya Shaariibuu murder investigation can only be reopened if there is evidence to show that others, apart from the two convicted policemen, have committed offences related to the murder, former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman said.

"Only then is the police obliged to reopen the case," he told The Malaysian Insider.

Talib said this in response to PAS Pokok Sena MP Datuk Mahfuz Omar's statement in Parliament today, urging police to reopen the murder investigation to establish motive.

Mahfuz , who recently visited convicted murderer Sirul Azhar Umar in Australia, said the motive for her murder was never established.

"He kept telling me he was ordered. The rest he spoke about is in confidence.

"I am not trying to defend a criminal, but the police must investigate who ordered the hit," Mahfuz said, while debating the royal address in Parliament today.

Talib said in criminal law, motive was helpful, but not necessary for the case.

"Motive is only helpful to determine intention of the killing," he said, adding that the murder case has been resolved with the conviction of Special Action Unit (UTK) personnel Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Sirul .

"The guilty have been brought to justice when the two cops were sentenced to death," he said.

Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda was acquitted of abetting in the 2006 murder.

Razak, once Altantuya's lover, was also confidante of current Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The High Court in 2009 found the police commandos guilty of the crime, but the Court of Appeal set the two free after reversing the findings of the trial court in 2013.

Sirul was absent when the apex court in January overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and sentenced the two to the gallows.

Sirul had left fled the country to Australia last October, but was detained by Immigration authorities there following a red alert by Interpol.

Allegations have been brewing since 2006 that Altantuya was ordered to keep quiet about purported kick-backs to high-level Malaysian officials over the US$2 billion purchase of two French Scorpene submarines when Najib was defence minister.

Najib has vehemently denied knowing or meeting Altantuya and the Malaysian government refuted allegations of any wrong doing in the submarine deal, which is the subject of an investigation by a magistrate in Paris. - March 11, 2015

Ex-judge, senior lawyer want Shafee disciplined

 

Senior lawyer and government-appointed prosecutor Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who has for the past few weeks held open dialogue sessions on Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II conviction, is in further trouble with his peers.

Now, a former Court of Appeal judge and a senior lawyer have presented a motion to the Bar Council for the 69th annual general meeting of the Malaysian Bar to condemn Shafee’s behaviour.

Retired judge VC George and senior lawyer Tommy Thomas further want the Bar Council to refer the  Umno-linked lawyer to its disciplinary board and take steps to prevent him from continuing to bring the legal profession into disrepute.

The motion was tabled by Tommy (left) and seconded by George, who is a consultant with the law firm M/s Skrine & Co.

In the motion tabled for the AGM, scheduled for March 14, the two cited Shafee's actions as questionable, arguing that barristers must not permit their absolute independence and integrity to be compromised, or compromise their professional standards in order to please clients.

They cited Shafee's actions of holding press conferences condemning Anwar, who cannot respond as a convicted prisoner, as one of the reasons why action should be taken against Shafee.

Thomas and George said Shafee's actions had drawn attention to his prowess as a top rate prosecutor and had demeaned his prosecution legal team by his participation in the nationwide roadshows.

Shafeee’s granting of interviews to traditional and on-line media concerning his performance also warranted action to be taken against the government-appointed prosecutor.

Shafee's actions, they said, are in violation of Rules 5(a), 31, 32, 33 and 49 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978.

Rule 5(a) states that a lawyer should not accept a case if he or she cannot be a professional, while Rule 31 states lawyers should uphold the dignity of the profession.

Shafee was fined RM5,000

Tommy and George also cited Rule 33 (feelings between clients should not influence the lawyer's conduct towards parties), and Rule 49, which states that lawyers should not ask for a matter or case to be reported.

They quoted the reaction of former attorney-general Abu Talib Othman (right), who said such action by Shafee was as if he was advertising and promoting himself to the media and called for his appointment as a prosecutor to be revoked.

Tommy and George also added a quote from celebrated English judge Lord Denning, who said that a prosecutor is not above the law.

Shafee is no stranger to controversy, for he has been fined RM5,000 by the Advocates and Solicitors Board for promoting himself in two articles published by an English daily.

He tried to have the fine set-aside in an appeal to the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, but the judge dismissed his review application.

The matter is still subject to a final appeal, before the Court of Appeal.

AG: Expect more cases on terrorism, extremism

Legal professionals must be prepared as such threats are the most difficult kind to address.

FMT

KOTA KINABALU: Judges and lawyers can anticipate another challenging year ahead, especially in the wake of extremism threats in the country, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail said today.

He said legal professionals had to be prepared for cases on terrorism and extremism which could be brought to court.

“These threats are particularly insidious and the most difficult kind to address.

“But such threats require firm and resolute, yet level-headed, calm and humane responses,” he said when opening the legal year for Sabah and Sarawak here.

Abdul Gani gave the assurance that the Attorney-General’s Chambers was committed to ensuring the highest quality of legal advice and timely prosecution in the ongoing security cases in the country.

He said this included the ongoing hearing of 30 people accused of intrusion in Lahad Datu as well as the enforcement of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 extended to Sabah and Sarawak on April 2 last year.

“For this purpose, deputy public prosecutors have been placed in the major districts such as Lahad Datu, Sandakan and Tawau to fortify public confidence that offenders will be brought to justice expediently,” he said.

According to Abdul Gani, further action was also anticipated in relation to the enforcement of Malaysia’s immigration laws with the release of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) report on illegal immigrants in Sabah last month.

On calls for the secession of Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia, he emphasised that aside from being seditious, such an act went against the spirit of federalisation.

“The social contract with Sabah is based on safeguard conditions contained in the 20-Point Agreement, while that with Sarawak is based on the 18-Point Agreement. Both were considered by the Inter-Governmental Commission set up on the recommendation of the Cobbold Commission in 1962.

“These are historical facts. They are recorded for posterity in the relevant reports of these commissions. They should be read, appreciated and properly understood by every succeeding generation of Malaysians,” he said.

Meanwhile, Abdul Gani said there was a need for proper appointments of Native Court judges on issues pertaining to Native Customary Rights (NCR) land.

In concurring with Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum’s proposal during the Sabah Native Customary Rights Symposium in September 2013, the Attorney-General said those judges must be appointed among impartial and legally qualified persons with a full grasp of the native laws to enable Native Courts to be on par with the Civil and Syariah Courts.

– BERNAMA

'AG berat sebelah, perlu perjelaskan kes Melayu pendatang'

A-G should explain why emergency not declared during floods, says law expert - See more at: http://www.th

The country’s top lawyer must explain why Putrajaya is reluctant to declare a state of emergency in areas affected by the current devastating floods, constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari said.

"The Attorney-General (Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail) should come out to explain the issue," he added.

Aziz said the legal provision on emergency in Malaysia was different from that of the United Kingdom or the United States.

In the US, he said it was implied that the executive authority was in the hands of the President while in the UK it was contained in an ordinary legislation.

"In Malaysia, the power to declare a state of emergency is in the Federal Constitution and in the hands of the Yang diPertuan Agong, who normally acts on advice from the Cabinet," Aziz said in a statement.

He said this in response to federal opposition parties, DAP and PAS, which had criticised Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak for his failure to declare a state of emergency, especially in Kelantan.

The Universiti Selangor academic said PAS Youth's legal committee had also cited a standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by the National Security Council (NSC) in the event of such disasters.

"But the NSC is just a government agency and the SOP is not even a law, let alone able to take precedence over the Constitution," he added.

Aziz said PAS claimed that the state of emergency that it talked about was not the one under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution.

"Now, who has the authority to say that? How many types of 'state of emergency' are there in Malaysia?" he asked.

PAS Youth legal committee also claimed that the declaration of a state of emergency was crucial in order to allow the use of military assets.

"I think they are wrong. All those assets, including helicopters and ships are all under the control of the government," he said.

On Saturday, Najib had said floods submerged much of Kelantan but insisted that there was no necessity to declare a state of emergency in the northeastern state as insurance companies would be absolved from paying compensation.

"If the government announces an emergency, the implications that will arise include the insurance companies being absolved from paying compensation... and compensation arising from damages to property and vehicles is enormous," he had said.

Aziz said he felt that the government had some good reasons for not declaring a state of emergency as it would not have improved anything.

"Emergency declaration will not stop the rain or will help us with more food or boats," he added.

He said todate, a state of emergency has only been declared once, that is, during the severe haze problem in Sarawak in 1998 but it was not done by the King.– December 29, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/a-g-should-explain-why-emergency-not-declared-during-floods-says-law-expert#sthash.AQor5wTs.dpuf

Intentionality

 

As little boys, we were all naughty; in one way or other. Often, after one throws a stone that breaks glass, what is the point of saying we had no intention to break the glass. We did; regardless of purity of intentions.

Therefore, I find the attorney-general’s (AG) statement that there was no intentionality for wrong-doing in the Perkasa leader’s statement more telling about the AG and his way of thinking than whether the leader did in fact mean to burn the Malay Bibles. The AG is merely imputing intentions of another.

Intentionality in Organisational Behaviour is a complex subject of serious study. In fact, my professor of public administration, Dr Michael Harmon, wrote two books on this subject. One is called ‘Action Theory’ and the other is called ‘Organizational Theory for Public Administration’. Both are excellent and should be made compulsory reading for all those who want and intent to join public services; both policy people and execution people.

If the AG is politically neutral he would not have expressed his views about this matter without explicit evidence which leads to that conclusion. But, now it seems that he has assumed the role of pseudo-investigator, evidence evaluator, and judge about the prosecution probabilities.

If, in fact there was a police investigation about his statement, then the AG must reveal the actual evidence of the tape-recording, and/or actual speech with the real text to prove there was no evidence of intentionality to actually burn Bibles.

He must prove that it was only conjecture about the real feelings of Malay Muslims (and, mind you, not Arab Muslims) and their intentions, and if such Malay Bibles were in fact distributed with ‘Allah’ in the text to refer to God Almighty; that is, the God of Abraham, Isaac (Ishmael) and Jacob.

The actual context of the statement is what can help us resolve this matter; not the AG’s opinion or even any sultan’s opinion. And, as with the recent Cameron Highlands case, there is no point for that sultan to lose his temper and show anger, after the horses have bolted the stable, so to say. Why not present the evidence about who is doing all this illegal logging; then, we will all know the truth.

Truth will set us free

I am a very big truth bug. I want to know the truth about any matter and will not stop my pursuit until I know the truth about whatever the matter, and however small it is. A colleague of mine at the International Trade and Industry Ministry (Miti) once told me, “Just let sleeping dogs lie; do not bug truth and truth will not bug you!” Wrong.

I believe that truth will set us free. At least that is what the bible promises and I have experienced. Truth has that freeing value; and it is an existential feeling about all matters in life, whether past, present, or future issues. Christians believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. That is either a fact, and therefore true; or a lie and therefore not true.

Truth matters in all of life, and therefore we have to hold all public personalities to these truths that matter. No goon can be allowed to say that he can burn the Bible, regardless of whether it is a Malay, Arabic, or English bible and get away with such ‘irreverent language, without even a basic reprimand’.

Even if it was not a threat; one has to view the burning any religious books as sacrilegious; premised upon our Rukunegara. Instead, we get a skewed-eyed AG who cannot distinguish between lies and truth.

Let me make my point in even more strident terms so that the goons can understand. If ‘Allah’ is the one and only true word for God; and the Arabs have been using this word for God since the times before Islam, and the Prophet; how can 21st Century Melayus suddenly claim this pre-Arabic and pre-Islamic word for God and reduce it now into a Malay word, and to be used only by Malays in Melayusia.

It is when this is done that I argue that we are not living in Melayusia but Malaysia. Those who want to live in Melayusia should maybe move to any geography wherein the Malay-Muslim version of all interpretation about life and living become a worldview of life and for life. Then, even the guillotine can be freely used because then we become ‘katak dibawah tempurung’.

The roof of that worldview is only the top of the coconut shell and nothing else really matters; including all other objective truths. But then we forget that even our God is reduced to the coconut shell’s greatness with its sky. One can really understand all this through a movie; please go and watch ‘The God’s must be crazy!’

Negaraku; tanah tumpahnya darahku?

We are Royal Military College (RMC) Old Puteras! Next year, my intake from 1965 celebrates our golden anniversary of 50 years of friendship. We are a multi-ethnic group of Old Puteras (OPs) who were about 100 in our year of intake. Three of us were even Singaporeans; the only three from Singapore ever, because in that year, too, Singapore left to become a nation-state.  They too celebrate 50 next year!

RMC trained us to salute the flag of the Federation; and we did this every weekend at parade. We were taught to live, fight, and die for the flag. In our time, we had free choice as to what we wanted to do after we left the F/RMC, whether after two or four years.

Not many of us actually joined the Armed Forces of Malaysia and fought for this nation-state? To my count, not more than 10. Does that mean, the others were not “shedding blood” for our nation-state, as implied within our song; our national anthem? Not really.

It was a metaphorical way of saying that we must always find ways to put the national interest over and above one’s personal, or private, or communal interest. Then we are trained to become an officer and a gentleman as we were; never otherwise. If we cannot do this objectively and truthfully; we are still only kampung boys and must simply admit that.

Negara-Ku; the movement of Rakyat Malaysia

When Sarawak did not permit entry of Ambiga Sreenevasan into their state, it was an insult to the meaning of Malaysian-ness. If the peninsular Malayans cannot sing and mean the same words as did the Sabahans and Sarawakians; then we are not yet one country.

That is why we are arguing for a movement of people groups to sing and understand our song all over again; but, without a narrower worldviews being propagated by the weaker ethnicities of Malaysians; defined by their emotional view of what is this nation-state we call Malaysia.

Negara-Ku is a peoples’ movement to reclaim this land from our politicians and narrow minded bigots who think that only their worldview defines all truths that matter. They even redefine the federal constitution and the Rukunegara as the starting foundations of who we are and can become. Let us become a Negara-Ku; a jointly shared community of personal visions of/for what our land of promise can become, if we all can reclaim it; each in our small way.

---

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him at kjjohn@ohmsi.net with any feedback or views.

Judges recuse themselves from AG's immunity case

 

Two judges at the Court of Appeal recused themselves from hearing attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail's appeal today.

The hearing is to set aside the High Court judgment that he is not immune from legal action, following suits brought by former Commercial Crime Investigation director Ramli Yusof and lawyer Rosli Dahlan.

The two suits are related to what is known as the Copgate affair.

The two judges who removed themselves from hearing the appeal were Justice Alizatul Khair Othman and Justice P Nalini.

Justice Alizatul recused herself as she was the KL High Court judge who dismissed Rosli's judicial review application to challenge the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission order for him to declare his assets.

Justice Nalini was one of the members in the Court of Appeal panel which upheld the KL High Court judg‎ment awarding Rosli RM300,000 in damages, following suits he filed against the MACC and New Straits Times for defamation.

Following this, the Court of Appeal has fixed April 1 next year to hear Abdul Gani's appeal before another panel.

Rosli was represented by Chethan Jethwani, while lawyer Harvinderjit Singh appeared for Ramli. Senior lawyer Cecil Abraham appeared for Abdul Gani.

Chethan had pointed out to Justice Alizatul at the start of today’s proceedings that she was involved in the judicial review application by Rosli, and this led to her recusing herself and Justice Nalini to also withdraw herself.

It was reported on April 11 this year that Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera has dismissed Abdul Gani’s application to strike out the two suits brought by Ramli and Rosli, where he ruled the AG was not immune to legal action.

‘AG has no total immunity’

Vazeer Alam wrote that the notion of absolute immunity for a public servant, even when mala fide or abuse of power in the exercise of their prosecutorial power is alleged in the pleadings, is anathema to modern day notions of accountability.

“I agree that deliberate abuse of power by a person holding a public office is tortuous and is referred to as misfeasance in public office.

“Such a tortuous act can arise when an officer actuated by malice, for example, by personal spite or a desire to injure for improper reasons, abuses his power,” the judicial commissioner had said in his lengthy judgment.

Ramli and Rosli named Abdul Gani, former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan and the MACC officers claiming abuse of power, malfeasance in the performance of public duty, malicious prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct among others.

Ramli had filed a RM128.5 million suit, while Rosli had filed a separate suit amounting to RM48 million against the same parties.

At present, thi

Bar Council: Not for us to conduct prosecutions, AG’s fiat for individual lawyers only

Malay Mail
BY IDA LIM

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 21 — Despite a suggestion that it take over the role of prosecutor to haul controversial politician Datuk Ibrahim Ali to court for his bible-burning call, the Bar Council said it is not in a position to carry out such action.

Its chief Christopher Leong clarified with Malay Mail Online that no organisation can act on any fiat from the Attorney-General (AG) for non-government lawyers to act on his behalf in court, adding that the authority can only be granted to an individual.

“It would not be the function of the Bar Council as an organisation to undertake any criminal prosecution. Any fiat to be issued by the AG would be to an individual lawyer,” he said in a text message when contacted yesterday.

Leong added that such authorisation of private lawyers to conduct criminal proceedings would only be granted when the AG himself felt that charges should be pressed.

“Fiats are only issued in cases where the AG as the Public Prosecutor wish to commence prosecution but is either constrained by time, resources or expertise.

“Hence, the PP would only issue a fiat if in the first place he is of the view that a particular matter warrants prosecution. This is because a person holding the fiat is representing and prosecuting on behalf of the PP,” he said, using the initials for public prosecutor.

He also said that only the AG can issue any fiat.

Yesterday, PKR MP Gooi Hsiao Leong called on the Bar Council to apply for a fiat from the AG to allow itself to initiate criminal proceedings against Ibrahim, adding that the AG risks being seen as lacking impartiality he does not issue the fiat.

The awarding of such a “fiat” is not new or unprecedented, Gooi said, pointing to the AG's previous appointment of private lawyer Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah to prosecute Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on behalf of the government in a criminal case involving a sodomy charge.

He also asked if the AG could have said that Ibrahim's statement was seditious if if it was clearly “intended to be an appeal to stop the propagation of a religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam as provided under Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, and not merely a call to burn Bibles” when read as a whole.

Over the past few weeks, Abdul Gani and his office has been under pressure to explain his controversial decision not to press charges against Ibrahim.

Abdul Gani also acknowledged that a sedition charge would not hinge on an individual's intention, but noted that there was also a court case saying that the alleged seditious action must be viewed in context.

In Ibrahim's case, the Perkasa leader issued the bible-burning call after a police report on the distribution of bibles to students, including Muslim students, in front of a Penang school, he said.

Abdul Gani cited Ibrahim's own clarification that he had not intended to create religious strife but had wanted to defend the sanctity of Islam, as well as his qualification that his call to burn bibles was directed at the group distributing them to students.

The government’s top lawyer also said Ibrahim had never called for the burning of “all bibles” which would be seditious, but had pointing to the edition of the bible that allegedly had Malay words with the word “Allah” and Jawi script that could “confuse”.

Converting spouses adding to conflict between civil and Shariah courts, says AG

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 19 — The bitter dispute over the religious status and custody rights to children in a marriage that turns sour after one of the spouses embraces Islam is creating new conflicts between the civil and Shariah courts, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail has said.

The Attorney-General (AG) noted that such cases then become controversies as it involves the jurisdiction of two distinct court systems and could risk Malaysia's multicultural harmony as they have led to claims of “racial discrimination”, adding that law reforms meant to solve such problems have yet to be approved.

"Inter-racial marriages have given rise to a new conflict between civil law and Shariah law in relation to the unilateral conversion as well as custody issues of minor children where only one spouse converts to Islam.

“The increasing number of cases has also raised allegations of racial discrimination by the courts and authorities. The anguish to the families cannot be overstated and that is a fact.

“In this regard, the failure of the converting spouses to resolve the family arrangements prior to conversion and in fact, attempting to use the different jurisdictions of the civil and Shariah courts to their advantage, jeopardises not only family harmony but potentially national harmony,” the top government lawyer said according to his written speech from the ILKAP National Law Conference 2014 last week.

Abdul Gani said the problem of enforcing conflicting orders from the civil courts and Shariah courts in such disputes then calls into question the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the police’s integrity, adding that this would hamper their ability to effectively carry out their duties.

Abdul Gani did not name any examples of such court cases, but there are two high-profile cases that have hit national headlines — the cases of non-Muslim mothers Indira Gandhi and Deepa Subramaniam, where both women’s Muslim convert ex-husbands ran off with their children.

In both cases, the Muslim convert ex-husbands cited the Shariah court orders granting child custody to them when refusing to comply with the civil court’s child custody orders in favour of their former spouse.

Despite recovery orders from the Ipoh High Court and Seremban High Court directing the police to act to find and return the abducted children to the non-Muslim mothers, the police have declined to take action and are now seeking the courts’ clarification instead.

Both cases did not involve spouses from different races, but the line between race and religion can sometimes be blurred in Malaysia as a Malay is constitutionally defined as one who professes the religion of Islam, among other things.

Abdul Gani said proposed amendments to three laws were mooted in 2009 to ensure that matters such as child custody and child maintenance would be decided by the court where the marriage was registered.

“These amendments, however, remain pending,” he said, without elaborating further.

He listed down the three laws of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984 and the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.

Lawyers have argued that child custody matters for a marriage that was initially between two non-Muslims should be decided by the civil courts even if a spouse later converts to Islam.

This is because a marriage that started out as a civil union should end or have any related issues ruled upon in the civil courts, instead of the Shariah courts for marriages between two Muslims, the lawyers said.

* NOTE: An earlier version of this article had inaccurately reported the Attorney-General as saying interracial marriages put national harmony at risk. The erroneous report was unintentional and has since been removed. Malay Mail Online apologises for the misreporting.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/converting-spouses-adding-to-conflict-between-civil-and-shariah-courts-says#sthash.xxo0C0HJ.dpuf

Harmony laws will protect royals and Malays’ special position, says A-G

New National Harmony laws may end up further tightening Putrajaya's grip on free speech on the topics of race, special privileges and the royal institution, judging from a recent speech by Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail.

The country's top prosecutor said that among the principles set down by the prime minister for the new laws, there must be nothing that "would incite hatred and contempt or disloyalty to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong or any Ruler".

All provisions regarding the different ethnic groups in Malaysia under Articles 152, 153 and 181 of the Federal Constitution would also be protected, Gani said.

"The new law would also proscribe promotion of ill will and enmity among races or different groups of peoples in Malaysia, and would prohibit the questioning of any rights, position, privileges, sovereignty and prerogatives as prescribed or protected under the provisions (of the Federal Constitution)," the text of his speech at the recent Ilkap National Law Conference 2014 said.

Gani was talking about the current debate over the Sedition Act 1948 and whether it should be repealed or amended and retained alongside National Harmony laws to regulate race relations.

The A-G likened the current debate as a "nationalistic struggle" about the future of the colonial-era law, enacted by the British and broad in its definition of what can be deemed seditious as well as loose in requiring proof of seditious intent.

"Those that advocate its wholesale repeal and substitution with a 'national harmony', 'race relations' or 'hate-crime' type legislation modeled on the laws in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States of America say that (the Sedition Act) is archaic.

"However, those that fear its repeal will lead to social disorder, anarchy or compromise of the special position of the Malay Rulers, which in turn would jeopardise the Malay Rulers ability to uphold Islam and safeguard Malay/Bumiputra rights, now argue for its retention," the A-G said.

He reiterated that the government was still in talks with various groups about the new national harmony laws, and it was still undecided if there would be new legislation, or if the Sedition Act would merely be amended.

Gani said the government "refused to be hurried" despite pressure from civil society on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to uphold his promise, which was first made in July 2012, to repeal the Sedition Act.

The A-G indicated, however, that he was open to having separate laws to deal with contempt of court and criticism of the government if there was "consensus" that such criticism should no longer be treated as having seditious tendencies.

He said he was personally of the view that contempt of court should come under a separate law, but that issues related to the Malays' and Bumiputeras' special position, the Malay Rulers and the position of Islam should remain in the Sedition Act.

"I believe it would be a problem to take these out of the realm of sedition and the Sedition Act 1948. I would like to make it clear that this is because these matters are embodied in the Federal Constitution.

Therefore, they will have to be protected under the Sedition Act 1948 unless those provisions themselves are first amended.

The position of Islam and the citizenship rights of the non-Malays must also be similarly protected," Gani said.

But he also said the rights of non-Malays under Part III of the constitution on citizenship requirements, should be similarly protected as these were "part of the social contract".

The proposed National Harmony laws are being drafted by the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC), a government committee under the purview of the National Unity and Integration Department.

The council, which comprises senior civil servants, academicians, civil society representatives and even an opposition MP from PAS, recently drew flak from ruling government MPs who said that it had jumped the gun in releasing its draft to the public, giving the impression that Putrajaya had endorsed the draft.

The NUCC's work appears to be in doubt, based on Gani's speech in which he said that the A-G's Chambers would be "taking up the gauntlet to prepare this new era legislation for Malaysia". – November 19, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/harmony-laws-will-protect-royals-and-malays-special-position-says-a-g#sthash.ukftHOi7.dpuf

AGC objecting to submissions at death inquest a bad precedent, says lawyer

The lawyer for the family of Cheah Chin Lee, who died in police custody in August 2012, has expressed concern over an apparent precedent set by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) in objecting to the family's submissions at the inquest on Cheah’s death.

M.Visvanathan said the AGC's move, through deputy public prosecutor Nur Farhana Hashim, to file a preliminary objection in the Penang High Court on October 31 could lead to a peculiar situation.

"The notice of objection is unprecedented in this country," he said at a press conference today.

"I would say the AGC should be happy that we are helping the court to reach the findings," he said, adding that the administration of justice should be open and transparent.

He said AGC did not respond in the same manner in the previous inquests such as Teoh Beng Hock and R.Gunasegaran who also died while in custody.

Visvanathan also cited the inquest on the death of Lim Chin Aik who was pinned into the ground by falling concrete from the Menara Umno building in June last year, where counsel Gobind Singh Deo who held the watching brief for the family was allowed to make extensive submissions.

"So why this different approach in Chin Lee’s case?" he asked. "All the while can, now suddenly cannot."

Stressing that the objection helps to create “an atmosphere of mistrust”, he said: "The administration of justice must be jealously guarded."

"We are very concerned that this case has created a very peculiar situation, a bad precedent so to speak," he added.

Also present were Chin Lee’s mother Lim Gaik Suan and uncle Cheah Eu Yeow.

On November 6, a High Court ruling by Judicial Commissioner Datuk Noordin Hassan upheld Coroner L. Umma Devi’s refusal to allow Visvanathan to make submissions, and to have notes of evidence and the court recording transcription (CRT) of the inquest.

Several human rights lawyers and activists have called the decision shocking, saying it had reversed the tradition of allowing lawyers, holding watching brief on behalf of the deceased's family members, to address the court.

Chin Lee’s auntie Leanne Cheah said the family is also mindful of the impact the decision would have on other cases.

"There were 19 deaths (in custody) in Penang alone this year and if this (denying access to records) happens now, if they change the ruling now, they can easily change the ruling for all the cases," she said.

Earlier this morning, Visvanathan told the inquest at the Penang court that he has since filed an application with the Court of Appeal (CoA) on November 13 on behalf of the family.

He requested for proceedings to be adjourned until after the CoA’s decision.

Umma Devi moved the proceedings, to be held for three days beginning January 21 next year.

She said she was doing so not because she agreed with Visvanathan’s request but to allow Bar Council representative S.Rethinakumar, who appeared for the first time to hold a watching brief, to get himself updated on the case with the help of necessary documents and audio materials.

"We welcome the good intentions of the Bar Council for this watching brief," she said.

A total of 17 witnesses have thus far been heard and another 15, including a few from the police, are expected to be called.

Chin Lee, 31, died in the Tanjung Tokong police station lockup on August 13, 2012, after he had been arrested for allegedly stealing a motorbike. – November 18, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/agc-objecting-to-submissions-at-death-inquest-a-bad-precedent-says-lawyer#sthash.xbzCIIIQ.dpuf

PAC To Summon Ministries, Government Department, Agencies Over AG Report

Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 10 Bernama) -- The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will summon nine ministries and five government departments and agencies to provide clarification on the 3rd series of the 2013 Auditor General's Report that was presented in Dewan Rakyat, Monday.

Its chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed said the nine ministries are the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Communication and Multimedia, the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health.

"For example, the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development need to explain a few things on its 1Azam programme such as selection of participants and the provisions that were given," he said.

He said the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, will be called to clarify the management of the events in programmes organised, while the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry would be called to explain the management of paddy seeds subsidy.

"All of them will be called in stages beginning January, and reports on the results of the meeting will be tabled in Parliament in March," he said told reporters at the presentation of the Auditor General's Report after a meeting with the Deputy Auditor-General Datuk Anwari Suri at the Parliament House, here.

Nur Jazlan said the five agencies to be hauled up will be the Department of Veterans Affairs (Ministry of Defence) over the management of benefit payments to retirees of the Armed Forces and the Accountant General's Department (Ministry of Finance) over the management of unclaimed funds.

Also called will be the Royal Malaysia Police Force (Home Ministry) over the management of patrol vehicles and motorcycles of the Mobile Patrol Unit and the management of traffic summonses.

In addition, to be called would be Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Ministry of Rural and Regional Development) over the construction of its Mara Junior Science College (MRSM) Arau, Kuala Kangsar, and Mara Higher Vocational College Lenggong and the management of Syarikat Malaysia Institute of Aviation Technology Sdn Bhd.

"Other agencies to be called are the Department of Environment (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment) over the management of privatization activity for air monitoring and enforcement of mobile and stationary sources."

Asked about the audit report, Nur Jazlan said he was surprised by the increase in the number of ministries and agencies that will be called in this series compared with the previous series.

A case of selective non-prosecution

The Star
by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

The case of Datuk Ibrahim Ali not being charged with sedition over his Bible-burning remarks remains a perplexing one for Malaysians seeking an answer to what they feel is an example of ‘selective non-prosecution’.

THE Attorney-General decided last week not to charge Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali with sedition for uttering words to the effect that Malay Bibles should be burned.

It is the same law under which nearly a dozen activists had been charged.

Although the Federal Constitution gives the A-G sole discretion whether to charge a person or not, that decision not to charge Ibrahim has invited considerable criticisms not only from retired judges and prosecutors but also from former and serving political leaders, priests and laymen.

They felt that the A-G’s decision was faulty, untenable and even smacks of double standards.

The legal arguments notwithstanding, the damage to inter-ethnic relations and to inter-religious harmony is incalculable.

Christians are upset because they felt there is a clear case of sedition but Ibrahim “escaped” being charged because the A-G stated that “he had no intention to create religious disharmony” when he called for the burning of those Bibles.

While judges and lawyers will argue over intention and context, the A-G decided that he would not lay charges because he thinks the “intention” was absent.

The A-G has usurped the powers of the courts.

“It is for the courts to decide “intention”, not him.

His decision means that Ibrahim got away scot-free.

And that is unacceptable to those who feel that Ibrahim has crossed the line and deserves to be punished.

They find it difficult to buy the A-G’s reasoning.

“It smacks of double standards,” said a well-known lawyer who declined to be named. “You can’t fault ordinary Malaysians for thinking otherwise.”

“This decision by the A-G is simply mind-blowing.

“His decision not to charge Ibrahim Ali is not only bad in law but he also walks a political minefield,” he said.

“His job is to lay the charges as he had on a dozen other activists who were charged with sedition.

“Let the court decide whether any of them had any ill-intention,” he said.

“Is Ibrahim Ali so influential that he is untouchable?” he asked.

There has been all sorts of speculation in the aftermath of the A-G’s decision, which was perceived to be bending backwards to accommodate right wing forces.

Another lawyer pointed out former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s support for Ibrahim.

Dr Mahathir made a big mistake by standing by Ibrahim and supporting him with his convoluted thoughts, the lawyer said.

“He should have stood behind moderate Malaysians in the country who are aghast at the way things are becoming,” she said.

Who can blame Malaysians for thinking that the authorities are being selective in deciding who to haul up in court when it comes to laying sedition charges?

Ordinary Malaysians are speaking up in the ways they know, in social media, on Twitter and Facebook.

These critics posted nasty comments on how Ibrahim is walking free and how the A-G, instead of laying charges, is acting like a defence lawyer.

Why is the reaction to “burning Malay Bibles” as uttered by Ibrahim so muted?

Why is it so defensive? Why is Dr Mahathir defending Ibrahim? Why is the A-G giving excuses for Ibrahim?

These are questions which ordinary Malaysians find perplexing.

The A-G should also use wisely the discretions allowed to him.

He should always have an ear on the ground on what the public feels is the right thing to do.

You can’t go wrong because this is a participatory democracy and not a dictatorship of a few over many.

> The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Civil court cannot annul religious court’s order as both are of equal status, says government lawyer

The High Court was wrong to issue a mandamus order to the Inspector-General of Police to arrest a Muslim convert and return his daughter to his ex-wife in a custody case as the Federal Constitution does not allow the civil court to interfere in the affairs of the religious court, a government lawyer said today.

Senior Federal Counsel Noor Hisham Ismail told the Court of Appeal that the High Court could not annul an order of a Shariah Court due to an amendment to the Federal Constitution in 1988.

"Parliament made amendments to avoid the civil court interfering in the affairs of the Shariah court," he said in his submissions to set aside the order given by High Court judge Lee Swee Seng.

He said both courts have exclusive jurisdiction and one was not superior to the other.

In 2009, the religious court in Ipoh had granted Muhammad Ridhuan Abdullah, who was formerly known as K. Pathmanathan, the custody of his three children, Tevin Darsiny, 17, Karan Dinish, 16, and Prasana, 6, after he unilaterally converted them to Islam.

The following year, the High Court in Ipoh granted kindertgarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi full custody of all three children and Ridhuan was ordered to return Prasana Diksa to Indira.

On May 30 this year, the Ipoh High Court cited Ridhuan for contempt and issued a warrant of arrest against him after he repeatedly failed to hand over Prasana Diksa to Indira.

Indira had also obtained a recovery order from the High Court to compel the police to locate Ridhuan.

The failure of the police to act resulted in her filing for a judicial review seeking the mandamus order, as IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar was insistent that police would take the middle path in cases where disputing parties had obtained separate orders from the civil and Shariah courts.

On September 12, the High Court allowed a judicial review by Indira for a mandamus order to force Khalid to arrest Ridhuan and return Prasana Diksa to her.

Khalid then obtained a stay order from the Court of Appeal on September 25.

His appeal against Lee's order was heard today before a three-man bench chaired by Datuk Abdul Rahim Abdul Aziz.

Hisham said since the Shariah Court had issued a custody order, the judge was also wrong in granting a recovery order to compel the police to locate and return the child to the mother.

However, he said the Police Act imposed a duty on the IGP to perform his function as prescribed under the law.

He said it was only a perception that non-Muslims were barred from seeking justice in the Shariah Court.

Indira’s lawyer Aston Paiva said she was a blameless person and used the court to seek a remedy to end her predictment.

"It is the husband who had gone into hiding and the mother never saw the daughter despite a High Court order in 2010," he said.

Paiva, who was assisted by M. Kula Segaran and N. Selvam, said it was wrong of Hisham to claim that a civil court could not make the mandamus order.

"The husband's defence is that he has a Shariah Court order and will not respect the High Court order to return the child," he said.

Paiva said the couple were married under civil law and their divorce and other relief like maintenance and division of property should be decided by the High Court.

"The husband's conversion to Islam does not affect the civil marriage unless decided by the civil court," he said.

He said the High Court in Ipoh intervened because the Shariah Court had exceeded its authority.

"A civil court can invalidate a Shariah Court order and this has been done many times in the past," he added.

Paiva said Indira's remedy was in the civil court because a non-Muslim spouse could not go to the Shariah Court as that forum was for persons professing the religion of Islam.

He said Khalid had ignored the High Court and made his own interpretation not to enforce the orders.

"He should have gone back to the civil court to ask for directive by making the necessary applications which he did not do," he said.

Paiva said the Shariah Court had no jurisdiction over the police as it was not a person professing the Islamic religion and as such, Khalid was not bound by a religious court order.

"Artice 121 (1A) was crafted to avoid conflict of jurisdiction and not to oust the supervisory power of the civil court," he added.

He also said there would be a state of lawlessness if the order of mandamus was not granted as it meant a civil servant could ignore the civil court.

"Public confidence in the judiciary will erode because the court can say anything it wants but orders will not be executed," he said.

Paiva said Indira would never be able to see her daughter whom she last saw when the child was 11 months old.

Lawyer Philip Koh Tong Ngee, who represented the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism, told the bench as a friend of the court that Khalid was bound to enforce the Police and Child Acts as they were federal laws.

He said the religious court was constituted under state law.

"Article 75 of the constitution stated that when there is inconsistency between federal and state law, the former shall prevail," he added.

The appellate court reserved judgment. – October 30, 2014.

Extreme Situations Warrant Prosecution Intervention On Seditious Issues - A-G

PUTRAJAYA, Oct 30 (Bernama) -- Prosecution intervention on seditious issues is deemed neccesary as situations have become too extreme, says Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

He said the level of tolerance and understanding which existed among the people in the country was being eroded and this might affect current and future generations.

He said in the past, there was no need for prosecution intervention as the people were able to handle comments on seditious cases maturely and patiently. However, the situation has changed.

"In the past, inappropriate social behaviour and language were unacceptable and those crossing the line were immediately stopped by their political and community leaders.

"Today, prosecution intervention is considered necessary as the situation has gone to the extreme," said Abdul Gani when speaking at the Attorney-General's Chambers monthly assembly here Thursday.

He said there were differences between orderly campaigns to discuss and debate issues and campaigns meant to undermine the country's sovereignty and public order.

These included attacks on religion, race and culture, the constitutional monarch and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as well as calls for Sabah and Sarawak to leave the Federation of Malaysia.

"It must be recognised that no government can stop its people from discussing matters relating to their constitutional and legal rights.

"This is part of the accountability and transparency of any elected government in any country in the world. Similarly, also recognised are actions taken to respect ideals created by the Federal Constitution.

"All rights should be respected and implemented unless the Federal Constitution has been amended through a vote or a referendum of the people. This is because, all the elements are elements of a social contract which is the pillar of the Federal Constitution and Malaysia," he said.

Abdul Gani also reminded that the freedom of speech in a multiracial and multireligious country should be held with responsibility and respect to the sensitivities of other people.

"Today, technological development is speeding up the dissemination of information, regardless of whether it is good or bad. As soon as we hit the button, we are no longer in control of the destination of an information. We should therefore, think carefully of our action and its consequences," he said.

On the decision not to charge Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali for sedition, Abdul Gani said an indepth examination of the statements made by Ibrahim found he had carefully laid out his statement.

Ibrahim had said he did not intend to create a religious commotion but to protect the sanctity of Islam under the law.

He said the Perkasa president had clearly stated that he meant the group which distributed the special Bahasa Melayu-version Bible which mentioned Allah to Malay students.

At a media conference later, Abdul Gani said each person was entitled to defend his own religion, so long as it was not against the law.

"It is not easy to charge someone in court, without complete facts, information and report. It is better if the department takes one case to court and win, rather than bringing 10 cases to court and win only five," he said.

On Jan 21, last year, police reports were lodged against Ibrahim for calling on Muslims to seize and burn copies of the Bible which contained the word, 'Allah' or other Arabic and Jawi religious words at a media conference after a Perkasa convention in Penang.

A-G draws flak for defending Ibrahim

The Star
by P. ARUNA

PETALING JAYA: The Attorney-General’s Chambers has come under criticism for its defence of the “burn Malay language Bibles” remarks of Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali.

The NGO Centre For A Better Tomorrow said the Attorney-General should publish guidelines on prosecutorial discretion to avoid being accused of selective prosecution.

The NGO, which champions moderation, said public prosecutors in England, Canada, Hong Kong and the United States already had such guidelines for serious offences and high-profile cases.

“By operating within the guidelines, the prosecutors in these countries could stand up to intense public scrutiny.

“Likewise, our Attorney-General would be able to defend his prosecutorial decisions better if such guidelines existed here.

“A case in point is the decision not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali over his Bible-burning remarks while those who uttered far less inflammatory words were swiftly hauled up,” said its co-president Lim Chee Wee in a statement yesterday.

On Monday, the Attorney-General’s Chambers said that Ibrahim’s call for the burning of Malay language Bibles “does not fall within the definition of a statement with a seditious tendency under the Sedition Act 1948” and was clearly to defend the sanctity of Islam.

Ibrahim made the statement in January last year with regard to individuals who had purportedly distributed Bibles containing the word “Allah” to students, including Malays, at SMK Jelutong in Penang.

Gerakan Youth chief Tan Keng Liang said the threat to burn the Bibles or other religious books was clearly seditious, no matter the circumstances or context.

“We understand that the A-G’s Chambers has the discretion of whether or not to prosecute the case.

“However, we are of the view that the A-G’s Chambers should not have passed judgment on the matter and should have allowed the judiciary to decide,” he said in a statement.

Council of Churches Malaysia gene­ral-secretary Rev Dr Hermen Shastri said the Attorney-General’s defence of the decision not to charge Ibrahim was unacceptable.

“It speaks about the defence of one religion, but what about other religions.

“Where does one draw the line? In a multi-racial and multi-religious society, the law should apply equally to all,” he said.

Christian Federation of Malaysia chairman Rev Dr Eu Hong Seng said the organisation stood by its earlier stand that the failure to prosecute Ibrahim would encourage ex­­tremists to take similar actions against non-Muslim communities.

MIC Youth chief C. Sivarraajh said he was surprised by the Attorney-General’s decision as Ibrahim’s statement was “clearly seditious”.

S'wak politicians shocked Ibrahim Ali not charged

 

Attorney General Gani Patail was severely criticised by Sarawak’s politicians from both BN and the opposition for deciding not to take legal action against Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali, on his urging to burn Malay language Bibles.

While a number of opposition politicians urged the sacking of Gani, who is a Sabahan, BN politicians said the AG’s decision seemed to contradict the government’s own principle as a nation that practises moderation.

Sarawak DAP Youth Chief Wong King Wei said that Gani should be sacked for his refusal to take action against Ibrahim Ali. “I was really shocked with his decision,” added the lawyer and Padungan Assemblyperson.

Sarawak PKR Chief Baru Bian (right) also urged the government to sack Gani for his lack of courage over the Perkasa chief’s Bible-burning remark.

“Gani is supposed to look after the rights and religious freedom of all Malaysians. What is wrong, is wrong,” he said, adding that that Ibrahim’s remark was certainly seditious.

“I believe Ibrahim’s remark will open the floodgates for others to act like him,” said the lawyer and Ba’Kelalan assemblyperson.

Baru’s colleague See Chee How, a lawyer and Batu Lintang assemblyperson, said that Gani should definitely be sacked as his non-action against Ibrahim is worrying many peace-loving Malaysians, especially Sarawakians.

“The longer he stays as AG the more we are worried as his decisions often contradict with the government’s policy of moderation,” said the Sarawak PKR vice-chairperson.

'Anything goes'

Another opposition leader, Sarawak DAP chairperson Chong Chieng Jen, said that the non-action by the AG against Ibrahim reflected Umno’s influence.

“Ibrahim Ali is backed by Umno,” added Chong, the Bandar Kuching parliamentarian.

Meanwhile, Parti Rakyat Sarawak president and Senior Minister James Masing (left) said that the AG’s decision seemed to indicate anyone could say anything seditious in the defence of Islam.

“Are you telling me that in defending the sanctity of Islam, anything goes?

“This is not the voice of moderation as envisioned by Malaysia, as stated by Prime Minister (Najib Abdul Razak) in his recent speech at the United Nations,” he said to The Borneo Post.

The land development minister said: “I am wondering where Malaysia is heading to with this kind of statement coming from the government.

“We cannot allow this (acceptance of extremism) to happen in our country. Malaysia has been so peaceful all these years, please don’t encourage extremism,” he said.

Assistant Minister Jerip Susil, a leader of the United People’s Party, accused Ibrahim Ali of tainting the very meaning of religious freedom in the country, especially in Sarawak.

“Ibrahim’s remark is very unhealthy for a multi-religious society like Malaysia,” he said, expressing regret over the AG’s decision not to take legal action against him.