|
©The
Malaysian Insider (Used by permission)
by Debra Chong
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 23 — The last few months have been eventful ones for the
Malaysian Bar Council. But if you ask its president Datuk S. Ambiga, she'd say
they were a little "too eventful”.
The number of issues indicative of the rot eating away at the heart of the rule
of law has increased drastically, it seems, in the 1½ years since she took
office.
There was the scandal of judge-fixing exposed through the V.K. Lingam videos,
the Lina Joy case as well as the two public fora on the social contract and
conversion to Islam this year, which appear to have rent further the gap between
the civil and syariah courts.
"It has been very challenging. I could do with a little less excitement,"
quipped Ambiga.
But the excitement is not letting up anytime soon. Right now, the Bar Council is
embroiled in yet another challenge, an old one in fact. Last Saturday, over 700
lawyers attended an emergency extraordinary general meeting at Wisma MCA here
and unanimously voted to reassert pressure on the government to immediately and
unconditionally release the people who have been detained under the Internal
Security Act and other similar laws, such as the Emergency Ordinance 1969 and
Dangerous Drugs Act 1985 that allow for an individual to be detained without
facing a charge or trial.
According to Ambiga, the number of detainees could be up to 2,000.
"As far as ISA detentions are concerned, we have for so long... so many years...
been completely against the ISA. The Bar has been the sole voice against the ISA
so many years ago," Ambiga said.
It was not the first time the Bar had convened to discuss the demerits of the
archaic legislation, nor will it be the last time until the law is repealed.
"People have appreciated for the first time that the ISA has been abused. Credit
to the media for highlighting the legal implications," she added, noting that
the number of supporters demanding a repeal of the ISA, particularly those from
within the government, has spiked lately, "which is very healthy."
Yet, the challenge remains to expose the depth of the impact and far-reaching
consequences such laws have on society at large.
"It's all about the prevention detention legislation," Ambiga emphasised.
"What we're looking for is a situation which minimises the abuse of power.
Unfortunately, the ISA and other such prevention detention legislation allow for
unchecked abuses of power."
During the EGM, the Bar was privy to first-hand accounts of the conditions under
detention from Teresa Kok, who was released on Friday after being detained for a
week; S. Pushpaneela, wife of the Kota Alam Shah state assemblyman M. Manoharan
who won the seat while he was under ISA detention; and another woman whose
husband has been detained under the ISA for six years.
"To me, one of the main things is for people to listen to the personal
experiences of the families who are wrecked, and of the victims, so as to
understand the impact of detention without trial.
"I am appalled by stories of Teresa and Raja Petra's family as to how they were
detained, for example, the sleep deprivation... being held in a cell without
windows, the bad food," recounted Ambiga.
Raja Petra Kamarudin of Malaysia-Today was one of three people arrested
two weeks ago in what looked like a crackdown on alternative media. He remains
in detention while the other two — Sin Chew reporter Tan Hoon Cheng and
Kok — have been released.
"We're terribly, terribly concerned at the way they were treated. To me, this
amounts to state-sanctioned torture. And that really has to stop.
"It falls within the definition of the United Nations Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We're not a
signatory to that convention but that doesn't mean that we can do it," Ambiga
said.
And as to the matter of the sudden resignation of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, the
pro-reformist senator appointed to the Cabinet as the de facto Law
Minister to overhaul the country's entire legal and justice system, Ambiga found
herself in two states of mind over the news.
"I think it is a loss, definitely. It is a loss in the sense of moving along the
reform agenda. He had done preparatory work for us.
"But he resigned on a matter of principle which is commendable. I can't ever
remember a minister resigning on a matter of principle and sets the right tone
for a democratic government," she said, expressing her fervent wish that the
government does not take this as a sign to hold back on the reform measures it
has been promising.
Ambiga said the council has been communicating with Zaid's predecessor, Datuk
Seri Nazri Aziz, who has said he would "move along the reform issues",
particularly the Judicial Appointments Commission, to tackle head on the ghost
that has been haunting the judiciary for the past 20 years — the 1988 judicial
crisis.
In a speech at the Bar's annual dinner in April, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad
Badawi brought up the issue and announced his intention to make up for lost time
and implement several measures, chiefly the setting-up of JAC, to re-empower the
present judiciary which had been stripped of much of its powers following the
sacking of its then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and two Supreme Court judges
and the suspension of three others.
It was the closest thing to a public apology the aggrieved parties would get.
For Ambiga, it was a very welcome and courageous stance.
"That's something we think is very necessary to confront if we want to step
forward and talk about judicial reform," she said. The Bar Council had slogged
1½ years researching its establishment.
"Everyone around me actually cautioned me against getting my hopes up but I said
'No! We did a lot of research on it. They will take us seriously.' Sadly, it
looks to be suffering the same fate as the IPCMC," Amiga said, referring to the
much-talked about and equally ill-fated Independent Police Complaints and
Misconduct Commission announced by Abdullah around the same time.
She added: "I hope I am wrong."
However, there has been no time to lament. Other matters pertaining to the
presentation, promotion and upholding of the rule of law soon took up space in
her mind, giving hope that some day the JAC may yet be born, perhaps in the
hands of Nazri who had failed the first time around.
"What's positive is that people are talking about these things more, about
excellence, integrity in upholding the office in the judiciary," she observed.
Her delight was also dampened somewhat by another observation.
"True to say, people take the rule of law for granted, until they do not have it
any more. Clearly, these issues have to be addressed."
The biggest and most pervasive challenge to the rule of law is when politics
takes centrestage, which is the de facto practice in governance in this
country, noted Ambiga.
"The rule of law is easily sidelined because it is a migraine to a lot of people
in power. That's why it is important to always have an eye on the ball where
that is concerned," she said.
She is greatly concerned with the abuse of political leverage by those in power,
which has caused damage to the rule of law. For example, lawyers being hauled in
for police questioning regarding their relationship with their clients,
referring to the recent incidents whereby several lawyers were subpoenaed over
the disappearance of private investigator P. Balasubramaniam, a key witness in
the ongoing murder trial of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.
"This is an act of intimidation of lawyers," cried the outraged Ambiga, who was
surely recounting many other incidents where the state employed playground bully
tactics against individuals.
"There have been frequent threats using the Sedition Act, the Internal Security
Act, recently, and they all point to using the power of the state against the
individual without regards to his rights," she blasted.
"It's almost as if we're losing grip to what is the real threat to society."
Some critics have called the Bar Council a "toothless tiger" when it comes to
fighting for what is really important, that is, speaking up for the rights of
all citizens.
"It is not that there are no people speaking up but that they are not allowed
to, or intimidated into not doing so. That's the real threat," Ambiga said,
emphasising that the Bar Council has never lost sight of its goals.
"As far as we are concerned, we only concern ourselves with the rule of law
issue. We do not enter the realm of politics at all, we do not comment on
politics. But our independence has been threatened," she told The Malaysian
Insider.
Ambiga said the Bar Council has been attacked so many times, been accused of
being partial to this party and that party, been called names, "that we are
anti-establishment, we are anti-opposition, so on and so forth."
"The office bearers face charges for sedition, contempt, all the like. It comes
with the job," she said, shrugging off the hazards of her job, which is wholly
voluntary. None of the 36 council members are paid for their extraneous
services.
Ambiga herself has received several threatening messages and phone calls from
anonymous parties, most particularly after last month's forum on "Conversion to
Islam: Revisiting Article 121(A) of the Federal Constitution".
A Molotov cocktail was lobbed into the compound of her old family home, now
occupied by Special Advisor to the Prime Minister on Women's Affairs, Datuk Seri
Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, and her family.
But the council is not only challenged by forces outside the Bar. Because it is
an elected body, there is also the matter of answering to the dissenting voices
from within, which Ambiga said wryly, was a whole lot tougher than the external
critics.
She acknowledged that there were differences in opinion but saw them positively.
"There's diversity in the Bar and that's our strength. When something really
important comes up, the numbers are there," she smiled, giving as an example,
the unanimous vote at last Saturday's Bar EGM on the preventive detention laws
and last year's Bar Council-organised "Walk for Justice" in Putrajaya.
And that's the comfort Ambiga draws from — knowing she has done her utmost to
speak up for the law reform and restoration of order.
"I call it keeping the faith. I hope I have kept the faith. That's my only
hope."
|
The Home Minister has said he wants the Internal Security Act (ISA) to remain - warts (read misuse and abuse) and all.
The 15-MP MCA has asked for a review to ensure that the ISA targets only terrorists and subversive elements. The two-MP Gerakan, meanwhile, calls for a parliamentary select committee.
The 28-MP DAP wants the ISA repealed, abandoning its initial support for the ISA very much earlier.
This Malaysian Bar, at its last meeting, also reiterated its call made long years ago for the repeal of the ISA.
For far too long, the ISA has been used, misused and abused against the democratic Opposition parties and the democratic NGO leaders. It has been the operating standard answer to any compelling argument mounted by the Opposition and the NGOs.
There was a time when I used to enjoy the debates in Parliament. I even read the Hansard that contained the cut and thrust of debate just to entertain myself.
Today, the standard of debate has descended beyond all recognition. I challenge anyone to disagree with me after they have read and compared the debates of the Federal Legislative Chamber of yesteryears, those of the 1960s and those of today. Were I to read today's Hansard, it would not be a labour of love. It would be torture!
One of the reasons for this descent from love to torture is probably the ISA. No counter-arguments are proferred against a cogent, coherent and compelling argument. The answer is just to use the ISA against the speaker.
Is that what nation-building is all about? Use the metaphorical hammer of the ISA to "kill" the proverbial fly of the speaker?
I certainly think all my fellow Malaysians deserve better. I have lived the 58 years 8 months and one day of my entire life so far with the ISA.
I remain unconvinced that it is the operative standard answer to a cogent, coherent and compelling argument. I remain convinced that the answer to such an argument is to mount a better one. If this cannot be done, then, it is about time that we deal with each other honestly and accept that argument.
Morality demands at least this minimum. Decency demands even more ...
Stephen Tan Ban Cheng