"Why is it important to
charge Anwar? One of the reason is (that there is a) complainant...just because (he
is a) small man (he is still) a complainant...justice has to be done..."
The above statement mirrors the one made by a certain Tan Sri on one of his roadshow talks after Anwar's conviction.
Nicely said by the well-versed, learned man...well, based on statements of such kind we will have to start investigating and charging a bulk of other people that have done things worthy of criminal investigations. We will have to do a blanket investigations into almost EVERY complaint brought on by anybody regardless of political, religious, race and gender worthy of investigation. After all, isn’t even the most trivial cases worthy of justice?
I applaud the police and the Attorney-General’s office generally for their prompt action in many cases, but there are certainly times when the actions of the powers that be are seen to be selective, in that only a percentage of offenders in the same class are caught and charged under the law. Such selectivism is of course allowed in common law and also out of practicality, such as the case where the A-G prosecutes an offender of a truly trivial offence with little evidence, after all Article 145(3) provides the A-G with absolute power to conduct or discontinue any criminal proceedings, other than Syariah or court martial proceedings.
The above statement mirrors the one made by a certain Tan Sri on one of his roadshow talks after Anwar's conviction.
Nicely said by the well-versed, learned man...well, based on statements of such kind we will have to start investigating and charging a bulk of other people that have done things worthy of criminal investigations. We will have to do a blanket investigations into almost EVERY complaint brought on by anybody regardless of political, religious, race and gender worthy of investigation. After all, isn’t even the most trivial cases worthy of justice?
I applaud the police and the Attorney-General’s office generally for their prompt action in many cases, but there are certainly times when the actions of the powers that be are seen to be selective, in that only a percentage of offenders in the same class are caught and charged under the law. Such selectivism is of course allowed in common law and also out of practicality, such as the case where the A-G prosecutes an offender of a truly trivial offence with little evidence, after all Article 145(3) provides the A-G with absolute power to conduct or discontinue any criminal proceedings, other than Syariah or court martial proceedings.
However, in view of the
events that happened lately, the selective prosecutions can be seen to be
prejudicial. Certain political figures are prosecuted for voicing out political
opinions by way of the Sedition Act, which provides a wide definition for the
act of sedition itself. This event has shown the downside of the selectivism by
the A-G.
Selective
prosecution is a problem which if not curbed...will result in a state wherein a
non-voted A-G and professional bodies such as the police will be uncontrollable
and might have prejudicial tendencies. For a good example of such a situation,
one need not look beyond the South China Sea to our good neighbors Thailand...where
the military bears commendable political power and has the say on who assumes
cabinet. Or look into Myanmar...where the junta reigns supreme. Malaysia's
political scene has the makings of a dictatorship, wherein the word is taken to
mean: -
"a form of government where political authority is monopolized by a single person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity's power remains strong"
(definition taken from Wikipedia; search ‘dictatorships’)
Therefore, power must be seperated plainly for the reason that it corrupts the soul of the wielder. History has taught us an enlightening lesson in the cases of Operasi Lalang during 1987, where freedom of political criticism and opinion was severely curtailed, and the Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s where the very fabric of the Separation of Powers was severely ripped apart.
All the above historical examples had been done under the law. For example, the Internal Security Act had deemed it lawful for the executive branch of government to detain any persons without trial for a period of up to 2 years to prevent any form of threat against the security of the nation, be it economical-wise or toward the functioning of the nation. Herein lies the problem that if the wielder had too much power, there exists a tendency that the wielder may abuse it to further its own cause. This is because everything can be done behind the veil granted to them by the law. After all, who can stop them? Although the ISA was eventually repealed, the act was replaced with the Security Offences Act 2012, which provides for section 4(3), that no person shall be detained under this section for the sole purpose of his political belief or political activity, the executive branch can still charge people for their political activities by way of a certain, very popular law aimed at statements made.
"a form of government where political authority is monopolized by a single person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity's power remains strong"
(definition taken from Wikipedia; search ‘dictatorships’)
Therefore, power must be seperated plainly for the reason that it corrupts the soul of the wielder. History has taught us an enlightening lesson in the cases of Operasi Lalang during 1987, where freedom of political criticism and opinion was severely curtailed, and the Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s where the very fabric of the Separation of Powers was severely ripped apart.
All the above historical examples had been done under the law. For example, the Internal Security Act had deemed it lawful for the executive branch of government to detain any persons without trial for a period of up to 2 years to prevent any form of threat against the security of the nation, be it economical-wise or toward the functioning of the nation. Herein lies the problem that if the wielder had too much power, there exists a tendency that the wielder may abuse it to further its own cause. This is because everything can be done behind the veil granted to them by the law. After all, who can stop them? Although the ISA was eventually repealed, the act was replaced with the Security Offences Act 2012, which provides for section 4(3), that no person shall be detained under this section for the sole purpose of his political belief or political activity, the executive branch can still charge people for their political activities by way of a certain, very popular law aimed at statements made.
At the end, since the
executive branch controls who gets prosecuted. It is up for the government to
act in good faith when perusing the powers bestowed upon them. They ought not
to exercise their powers to the extent that any citizen of the country will
deem the law ‘draconian’. They ought not to make the law a tool but to be a
tool to the law. They also have to uphold the sanctity of the rule of law when
exercising their power.
Back then in 1987, in the
context of explaining the Internal Security Act, our father of independence,
TAR stated that:-
(The Sedition Act is to)…be used solely
against the communists...My Cabinet colleagues
and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the
government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition
and silence lawful dissent".
As seen from the statement above, I hope
that the government will heed the promise of the late TAR and exercise their
powers bestowed upon them in a conscientious manner. Furthermore, the bible says
that: - “(that) whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also; (that) if any man will sue thee at the law,
and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also; and whosoever shall compel
thee to go a mile, go with him twain...(Matthew 5:39-41).
Let us hope the ruling
parties of Malaysia will approach conflicting political opinion not with
vengeance, not with the sword, but with the pen, and with love for its enemies.
Let us hope that the coming political fights between the ruling party and its
opponents will be much more transparent, clean (without the taint of indelible
ink, no doubt), beautiful, fair and fulfilling.
Declarations and admissions:
1.
I write the above essay as a layman bearing no
expertise whatsoever in the subjects that I have touched on during the course
of writing.
2.
I hereby admit that the essay MAY have wrongly
cited, wrongly researched points of law, wrong grammar, of which I apologize
beforehand.
3.
I hereby declare that I am not a Christian. And
that the biblical citation was done purely in an academic context.
4.
I hereby declare that I do not intend to subvert
the views of any non-Christian in citing the bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment