Assault On Legislature, Constitution Dead

Discussing the Perak situation with specificity is, by this stage, a difficult thing to do. So much has happened so quickly. Nuanced actions and counter-actions, some of it in uncertain legal terrain, and relatively scarce details have made it precarious to consider certain key events – the legal action against the Speaker and its incidents, for instance – with the depth that only certainty would allow for.

Having said that, whatever the specifics may be and whoever may be right as to the validity or legality of certain aspects of the unfolding saga, when considered from a broader perspective and with reference to the fundamentals of democracy, I do not think that the situation in Perak is very complicated at all. As Tengku Razaleigh recently observed, a chain-reaction of illegality has left Perak possibly without a legitimate government and the Constitution a dead piece of paper.

I was too young to fully appreciate the terrible impact on democracy that the events of 1987 and 1988 had. Understanding came later, as I learnt to see what needed to be seen: the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers and the check and balance it is aimed at, the independence of the judiciary and, correspondingly, the legislature. But even as my awareness of what had happened and how it had happened increased, I rather naively found myself thinking that it was unlikely that we would ever see anything of the likes again. Those events had simply been too heinous and the injuries inflicted on this nation too serious to ignore, even by those who had been responsible and those who would possibly follow in their footsteps.

Or so I thought.

The savagery of what has happened in Perak and the utter disregard of consequence on the part of those orchestrating the campaign go far to show how foolish I was to have believed that all of us, without exception, recognize that some costs are too great and for that, even blind ambition has its limits. It is clear now that this is not necessarily the case; for some, even the nation itself is expendable.

In saying savagery, I recognize that there has been neither bloodshed nor preventive detentions, though it is still too early to say for sure that things will stay that way. The incitement carries on, and mobs are being driven to frenzy to the throb of the war drums. Amidst the calls for blood, bullets have been sent, a disabled parliamentarian assaulted and some of his colleagues battered. The police have apparently too much on their hands to move with the speed that they are capable of and, as such, as things stand serve no useful role as the deterrent that the situation sorely requires.

Violence has however been done; to the Federal and State constitutions, to the Rule of Law and to all that these fundamentals represent. War has been waged on democracy itself.

I can think of no other way to characterize events.

As thing stands, the Speaker is still the Speaker. He has been at all times vested with the full powers of his office and the discretion to exercise those powers. He may have committed mistakes in arriving at certain decisions, but those are matters for the Legislative Assembly itself or, where legal limits have been transgressed, for the courts whose powers in this regard are limited by reason of the separation of powers. Until corrected, the Speaker’s decisions stand, be they the acceptance of the resignation of the three members who crossed the floor, the issuing of the show cause notices to the alleged usurpers of power and the effecting of their suspension, or the calling of the emergency sessions of the Assembly.

And yet under the hand of the Executive, in a manner reminiscent of the locking up of the Supreme Court in 1988 the Legislative Assembly itself was put out of bounds to members of the Assembly, This was done at the instigation of the State Secretary, an officer of the executive and as such its representative, with the assistance of a police force duty bound to protect the system of governance and associated freedoms put in place by the constitutions of this nation.

In doing so, the Executive laid siege on the Legislature. The sight of the Federal Reserve Unit barring the way into the Legislative Assembly, fangs bared and water cannon poised, was as close a physical depiction of democracy being taken hostage as we will ever see. The underlying intention of the exercise brings this further into relief. It was apparent that the Assembly had to be prevented from meeting for as long as it took for the lawyers to do what they could in court. Injunctions against the Speaker had been applied for. Once these were granted, the process that the Speaker had started would be brought to a halt.

The fact that the injunctions had been applied for shows clearly how far democracy was subverted. The making of the applications underscores awareness on the part of those orchestrating the campaign that self-help was not permissible. The validity of the Speaker’s actions had to be tested before a court of law. If they were not needed, the injunctions would not have been sought.

Despite this appreciation of the obvious, the might of the state was brought to bear. A federal agency was brought in and tasked to do what it was not mandated by law to do: keep the Assembly at bay to protect the interest of a coalition of political parties.

There is no law that allows police officers to deny members of a legislative chamber access to that chamber for the business of Legislature. It is not for any police officer to unilaterally determine that the business being conducted is not within the ambit of the legislature, no matter who might say it is. What the police force did was not justified in law. No crime had been committed. Though the gathering masses was reason enough for a police presence, breaches of the peace did not occur nor were orders to disperse issued, unsurprising given that the focal point was the denial of access to the Legislative Assembly.

It is glaringly obvious that confronted with a scenario that left it vulnerable to a tactical maneuvering of legislative procedure, and an inability to resolve the imbroglio to advantage, the Barisan Nasional at the state and federal level collectively took the law into its own hands. The plan to capture Perak had run into a brick wall and rather than go around it, they decided to blow it up and everything else with it.

The situation is comparable to a hypothetical scenario in which Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament barricaded Parliament House to deny Barisan Nasional Members and the Speaker access so as to prevent them from legitimately making a law that they would otherwise have. The only difference is if that had occurred, the Barisan Nasional would have denounced the exercise as an attempted coup d’etat and punished those involved to the full extent of the law at its disposal.

It does not make any difference that that the Barisan Nasional forms the Federal government of the day and is in a position to direct the police force; like all other institutions, these institutions are bound to act constitutionally and in accordance with the law. Malaysia is still a democracy predicated on constitutional supremacy. The expectation that all affairs will be conducted to the exclusive convenience and the advantage of the Barisan Nasional and its leaders is more suited to a dictatorship in which the Rule of Law means nothing.

Through the last week Malaysians have borne witness to a shameless display of belligerence and arrogance. We have heard a senior minister describe the emergency session, held by necessity under that now immortalized rain-tree, as “uncivilized”. Another senior minister described the Speaker as a ‘boy’. Though in line with the other ridiculous observations of ambitious UMNO leaders that Malaysians have had to endure since the beginning of the Perak affair, they do little to mask the obvious; that the Barisan Nasional appears to see no limits to what it is permitted to do to achieve its objectives.

And if it could do this in one state, what is to stop it from acting in the same way in other states or at the federal level. Judging by the way in which it has responded to criticism over its actions these past few weeks, it would seem nothing much. It is manifest that the Barisan Nasional considers itself a law unto itself.

That is the painful truth that lies at the heart of Tengku Razaleigh’s declaration that the Constitution is dead.

(Malaysian Insider; 6th March 2009)

MIS

Serving Justice, Straight Up

Serving justice, straight up

It took me a while to understand that in as much as contract, commercial, criminal, constitutional or any other field of law was important, the existence of a functioning system by which the law was applied and enforced was far more crucial. For without such a system, it would not matter at all that there were laws.

When I first graduated from law school, I believed that all things said and done we had such a system. I am almost certain now that we do not.

We have courts, some of them in very opulent buildings that are akin to palaces. We have judges at all levels, be it at the subordinate courts or into the dizzying heights of the judicial hierarchy. There is in place an Attorney General’s Chambers from which spring a number of federal counsel and deputy public prosecutors who represent the State in its legal endeavours. They are complemented by a host of lawyers who, together with their counterparts from the civil service, apply laws that have been duly enacted by legislative chambers and Parliament respectively.

Impressive, one could say. I however reserve my judgment. Just like cameras, there are “point and shoot” lawyers and judges, and there are the far more sophisticated and capable ones. Both serve their purpose but one category serves it far better, something to think about considering the legal system is one whose standard cannot be compromised for any reason at all. Lives, in the widest sense, are at stake. They are being put at risk by the kind of individuals being allowed into the system.

All this however does not directly answer the question of whether the system is one that is functioning effectively. In this, it must be understood that the ultimate arbiter of whether a legal system is effective is the public that the system is intended to serve. The level of public confidence in the system is the only yardstick by which this effectiveness can be measured.

The stark reality is that the average Malaysian entertains grave doubts about the integrity or competence or both of those who make up the system (and in this, I tar lawyers with the same brush). From a public confidence standpoint, it could be said that the system is not functioning.

We cannot blame them for so doubting. Controversy upon controversy, many of which were unnecessary and avoidable, have impacted. Suspicions have been given foundation by the findings and recommendations of a Royal Commission of Enquiry that lambasted the system and urged urgent corrective measures. One cannot fault the average Malaysian for thinking justice is no longer the sacrosanct quality that it is meant to be, having instead transformed into something pliable that can be moulded to convenience.

This has had ramifications it seems. Malaysians have no alternative but to take their cases to the courts, it is the only way in which they can have their legal disputes resolved. Faced with a system that they have come to perceive as lopsided and pliable, it appears that they have attempted to improve, or at the very least even out, their odds where they have been able to do so. If the system were seen and understood to be unyielding, this would not be occurring.

It is perception that fuels belief that the system is hardly working as it should. As a lawyer, this saddens me, not because I think it is an unfair assessment but because I can see why it is they might believe this to be the case. Over the last twenty years the Judiciary has taken a beating, inside and out. It seems like every Chief Justice since Tun Dzaiddin started his term with laudable declarations concerning the need for reform only to subsequently find that the problem areas were so entrenched that resolving them was neither easy nor possible in their limited terms of tenure. Promises unfulfilled have deepened distrust.

It is high time that those who manage the institutions in ours system of justice wake up to the hard truth that mere rhetoric and superficial changes will not serve any purpose in attempts to rebuild confidence. Efforts must be real and driven by a desire to deliver to Malaysians objective justice at its keenest. It is not enough to say that there are those in the system who do just that. Though that may be the case, there are seemingly those who do not. It must be understood why this is the case and what can be done. The situation is desperate and calls for extreme measures.

Crucially, the system must be seen to be delivering justice. It is a cardinal rule of justice that not only must it be done, it must be seen to be done. The appearance of impartiality is paramount in building public confidence in the system. In this, standards must be seen to be applied uniformly, without exception. Explanations as to why they are not, do not go very far in explaining away the fact that they are not.

Perception is key. Without the public having confidence in the system, justice will never be served.

(Malay Mail; 24th February 2009)

MIS

Defining Ideals: The JAC Bill

The tabling of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008 in Parliament is a momentous event for what it implies.

For far too long, civil society’s concerns about the state of the Judiciary had gone unaddressed by the Government. It seemed that that the acknowledgments this would require, and their implications, were too problematic for the Barisan Nasional to generate the political will this would require.

Consequently, rather than deal with the situation Malaysians were emphatically told instead that all was fine. In this, warnings from various quarters and mounting indications that the institution was in a tailspin went unheeded. The nature and extent of injury this has caused to the institution and our system of law is something that we may never fully recover from without radical steps.

The value of the Bill is chiefly in what it allows Malaysians to do: to move forward and to start looking at solutions.

Though the rhetoric from the Government since March 8th has been welcome, there had been neither tangible acknowledgment of the need for reform nor any concrete indications that steps were going to be taken. The tabling of the Bill has however changed that and we are now on far firmer ground to do what needs to be done. In the same vein, it is also noteworthy that in promoting the establishment of an appointments commission, the Government has also conceded that the way in which judges had been appointed in the past had compromised the independence of the Judiciary.

The utility of the Bill must however be measured against its declared objectives. That the genesis of the Bill lies in the unfortunate events underlying the Lingam Video Enquiry cannot be ignored. These centered largely on the perceived absolute discretion of the Prime Minister to unilaterally determine the appointment and promotion of judges. I say perceived because there had been a time when the constitutional provision concerned had been understood to mean that the Prime Minister would defer to the choices of the leaders of the Judiciary whose advice would have been shaped through consultation with the leaders of the Bar. In this way, care had been taken to ensure that one person did not shape the Judiciary, even if that person was the Prime Minister. As the evidence that came to light during the Lingam Video Enquiry however showed, this had become the case over time.

In this context, for the proposed law to be effective it must substantially minimize, if not wholly extinguish, the risk of this reoccurring. In doing so, one would reasonably expect the Prime Minister’s role to be circumscribed in such a way so as to impede autocratic decision making on his part.

Regrettably, the Bill does not achieve this and instead goes a long way to preserve the absolute discretion of the Prime Minister. It does this in several ways. Firstly, it is not clearly stated that the Prime Minister can only recommend for appointment those persons whose names have been put forward by the proposed JAC. This suggests that the Prime Minister is not bound to do so and can make his own recommendations.

Secondly, the composition of the proposed JAC is worrying for not only involving the leaders of the Judiciary who, as experience has shown us, are not entirely immune from being beholden to their appointing authority, but also a Federal Court justice who might suffer from the same sense of obligation as his or her peers. Four other individuals who are appointed and can be removed at the sole discretion of the Prime Minister complete the JAC. It is evident that this scheme will not inspire much confidence, given our history.

There are other aspects that are equally indicative of a concentration of power in the Prime Minister over the make-up and functions of the proposed JAC. This is worrying for they collectively undermine the stated aim of the exercise for promoting rather than minimizing the role of the Prime Minister. The scheme of the Bill is not easily reconciled with the independence that the proposed JAC would require in order to function effectively.

There are some laudable aspects of the Bill. These include the creation of a duty on the Prime Minister to promote and protect the independence of the Judiciary as well as the characterization of potential conflicts of interests on the part of members of the proposed JAC. These are however of no real value if the core of the Bill is not crystallized correctly.

As other more notable personalities have expressed, all indications point to a need for more comprehensive study and extensive debate. In attempting to give meaning to the independence of the Judiciary, a cornerstone of our system, we are defining an ideal. This is a process that allows for no compromises.

(This comment was written for The Malaysian Insider where it was published under the caption "In current form, JAC falls short of inspiring confidence")

MIS

Striking A Pose

Striking A Pose (Of Crime And Punishment)

THE recent ruling by the National Fatwa Council on yoga has resulted in a range of responses, from dismay to unqualified and devoted acceptance. I must admit to bewilderment in part because of all the pressing issues that confront Muslims in this country, many of which directly pertain to matters of social justice, yoga was one of the least expected amongst those that demanded urgency. It would have been useful for the Council to have directed its mind and resources to matters of faith that complement efforts aimed at the nurturing of an inclusive, just and compassionate society.

That being said, a ruling has been made. I say ruling because until and unless the ruling is endorsed by the fatwa committees of the various states and the Federal Territories and then gazetted (published in the official government journal), the ruling is not a fatwa.

The administration of Islam is a matter that falls within the exclusive purview of the state under the Federal Constitution and, as such, where fatwas are concerned within the sole domain of the state fatwa committee. In this context the National Fatwa Council allows for policy consultation at a federal level to facilitate a more unified vision of the practice of Islam, each state being legally entitled to pursue its own vision.

Within the state, it is for the Majlis Agama to take steps to gazette a ruling of the state fatwa committee. The resultant fatwa is prescribed by the respective state law as being binding on all Muslims as a dictate of Islam. They are duty bound to abide by and uphold the fatwa unless permitted by Islamic law to depart from it in matters of personal observance, belief or opinion. The burden of establishing that an exemption is permissible is however on the individual as state Islamic criminal law provides that acting contrary to fatwa is a criminal offence.

It is significant that despite a fatwa being for all purposes and intents a ‘law’ the breach of which is punishable, there is no need for rulings to be referred to the State Legislative Assembly before they are gazetted and become binding as fatwa. Seen in this light, it could be said that the Majlis Agama and the fatwa committee are therefore legislating.

The pressing question arises as to how this can be sanctioned in view of our Constitution having put in place a system of law-making centred on legislatures constituted by duly elected representatives. The making of binding fatwa in the manner provided for is a glaring anomaly from the dictates of the democratic processes enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

It is this very concern that drove a team of us to taking up two challenges in the Federal Court involving persons allegedly having been involved in deviationist Islam not too long ago. Amongst other things, our clients had been charged with acting contrary to fatwa; charges that for the reasons explained above took us to heart of law making.

In its decision earlier this year, the Federal Court disagreed with us and upheld the validity of the fatwa making process. With respect, in so concluding, the Federal Court in effect allowed for a subverting of Parliament, and the accountability the institution is intended to promote, in this extremely crucial aspect of the constitutional framework by giving licence to the religious bureaucracy to autonomously fashion a parallel system of law outside the established legislative structure and the supervision it envisages. I clarify here that I do not intend to cast aspersions on the qualifications, character or aims of the members of the respective majlis-majlis and fatwa committees. The implications of the decision of the Federal Court are however not easily reconciled with the very purpose of legislative power being constitutionally entrenched in the legislature, and the value of this entrenching to wider society.

The rakyat elected representatives to the legislature to ensure that our respective views were presented and taken into consideration as well as to allow us to have oversight over the processes that ultimately shape our lives. Our representatives should be making law as well as overseeing its making.

Legislature cannot be permitted to delegate its essential legislative function in any field, even to a well-intentioned specialist committee. This is not just about Islam; it is equally about all the other fields that specialist committees might be created for in the same way.

The limited numbers of a committee cannot compare to the full weight of the august houses of Parliament. That some of those in parliament may be of questionable competence, some might say sanity, is of no relevance as it is the underlying principle that is in issue. Allowing for a divesting of legislative power and control is most certainly a state of affairs that will wholly undermine democracy and true nation building.

Consider it from a different perspective. Would a State Legislative Assembly have enacted the offence of practicing yoga? I have my doubts, not least for the heated debates that the tabling of a bill to create the offence would have resulted in. If this were the case, then how is it that the system allows for the criminalising of yoga by the ruling of a committee and the mere gazetting of that ruling?

On the other hand, if a state fatwa committee were to produce an expert opinion that was then made the basis of a bill tabled in legislature, would it not be conceivable that with logic and reason, the bill would be carried? More work might have to be done, as explanations would have to be made that much clearer and factual basis of concerns set out coherently. However, considering that laws are being made, these are necessary prerequisites in any event for such grave efforts.

In the meanwhile I wait with bated breath for the next fatwa. Who knows, it may be about corruption.

(Malay Mail; 25th November 2008)

MIS

Subsequent to this article being submitted for publication yesterday, the Perak State Religious Department has acknowledged that it is necessary for His Highness the Sultan of Perak and the state Fatwa Committee to consider the matter before the policy can be implemented in the state of Perak. The Sultan of Selangor has also indicated reservations (see here). The gazetting of a fatwa requires the assent of the Sultan.