|
 ©New
Sunday Times (Used by permission)
by Aniza Damis
Is deporting illegal immigrants from Sabah the right solution to a different
question? Why doesn’t the National Registration Department enforce some laws
that would help reduce ‘phantom voters’? Why was Saiful Bukhari not charged,
too? And why didn’t the police arrest the Bar Council forum gate-crashers? Home
Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar gives Aniza Damis the answers
Q: How does Ops Bersepadu (to clear Sabah of illegal immigrants) actually
answer questions that Sabah politicians want answered about how many foreigners
have improperly received Malaysian citizenship in the last 30 years?
A: If you look back into the last 30 years, there may be many
people who will be in trouble. But for those who have lived in the country for
the past 30 years, they are now entitled to citizenship anyway.
Q: What is it that the Sabah politicians want?
A: They want it to be regularised.
Q: They also want a royal commission.
A: We said no. People are asking why identity cards were
issued to those without proper right to citizenship. But once a person has
become a citizen, we cannot go back and look at all those things. Otherwise,
we'd have to look all over Malaysia.
Q: So, if someone got an identity card illegally, or improperly, and is now a
citizen, you can't look into this?
A: If he got it illegally and there is proof that he got it
illegally, then, we can look into it. But it has to be looked at on a
case-by-case basis.
Q: It takes about 12 years to get citizenship. Can't you look at the people
who got theirs in just one or two years?
A: In exceptional circumstances, we do give citizenship
quickly. Information technology experts, from India, for instance, can get
citizenship within one or two years. The whole family. But those are exceptions.
In the case of Sabah, we're being careful. Every step we take, we discuss it
with all the political parties in Sabah.
They know that things must be looked at properly. They know the problem of
stateless persons and many other issues. But you can't solve the problems
overnight.
That's why we do not want to bulldoze through anything. Whatever we do, it is in
consultation with the people of Sabah.
During the time of PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah), they allowed many Filipinos into
the country.
Q: It has been claimed that this was done under Project IC (allegedly a
project to give citizenship to certain foreigners to change the voter
demographics in Sabah).
A: The only project we had was Project IMM13. That's a
different situation.
IMM13 is for people who came in illegally but we give them refugee status, even
though we do not recognise refugees. That means, after the state of emergency in
their country is over, they are expected to return home.
But, like any country, there are also refugees who decide to become permanent
residents or citizens. But if they are travelling with an IMM13 permit, it does
not entitle them to become a PR or citizen.
It's a complex issue. It's not just a question of getting rid of the people. If
we look at it emotionally, we cannot resolve it. It's not only a problem in
Sabah and Sarawak, but also in the peninsula.
It has to be looked at rationally, objectively, on the basis of humanity. No
country or state would like to see their population demography change in such a
short time from the admission of illegals.
Q: What is the punishment for someone who comes in illegally, is deported but
then comes back in illegally again?
A: We have to deport them. That's all. What kind of
punishment can we give?
Q: So, it's like bailing water out of a leaking boat?
A: I think that once it's seen we are serious about it, that
there's a continuous exercise, it becomes a deterrent.
Q: The Election Commission has said the problem with clearing the electoral
roll of "planted voters" (or phantom voters) is that it is difficult to
ascertain whether a voter is a resident in the constituency he votes in.
A: The only reason people talk about phantom voters is
because the deaths of some people are not registered. Also, sometimes the
relatives do not surrender the MyKad of the deceased or inform the National
Registration Department about their death.
So, the electoral roll will have a person's age running to more than 100 years,
whereas, that person has died. It's not enough just to get the permit from the
police -- that's just a burial permit.
Another problem is, when their MyKad have not been surrendered, they get re-used
by other people, like illegals.
Q: The EC says the NRD's information on dead people is not reliable, so it
has to get information from the police to help it clear dead voters from the
electoral roll.
A: That's wrong. The police only issue burial permits. So, if
you go to the police, it still means that the death would not have been
registered and the deceased's MyKad is valid.
Q: Knowing that some deaths are not registered, why doesn't the NRD get the
information (of who has died) from the police?
A: The authoritative body under the law is the NRD.
Q: But you know people break the rules.
A: If there are people who break the rules, the law will take
its course. You can't change the system because there are shortcomings or
because some people break the law. You must have consistency in the law as well
as the system.
Generally, Malaysia is one of the few countries where vote-rigging or "phantom
voters" are uncommon. It may arise from time to time, but that can be easily
corrected.
Q: The EC chairman says some people feel that there are "phantom voters"
because of those who turned up whom the other residents have never seen before.
A: This is because the person used to live there but now
lives elsewhere. The NRD has a regulation (Regulation 15 of the National
Registration Regulation 1990) which requires a person to register his change of
address with the NRD within two weeks of changing residence.
Q: But the EC chairman says this is not enforced. Is this true? Why?
A: There are 484,545 MyKad that are supposed to be picked up
that have not been picked up. So, if you ask people to change their address,
there will be a few million (cards not picked up).
If they come, we will change their address; that's not a problem. But it's not
for us to enforce. If we say every Malaysian (who doesn't update his address)
will be fined, there may be a few million.
Q: Why does the NRD have a regulation that it doesn't enforce?
A: We can do away with it. But if we do away with it, then
the whole system will not work. You'll have havoc if you do away with it.
If we were to insist that people register their new address every time they
move, there would be a public outcry. To look at it academically or
journalistically may be nice, but there will be a few million people who have
not changed their address.
Q: But why have the law if we're not going to enforce it?
A: Some laws are there in order to regulate. But it's not
perfect. Human laws are never perfect. There will be breaches. But when we need
to take action, we'll be able to take action.
Q: The problem with having laws that are enforced arbitrarily is that it
opens up another market for corruption.
A: This has never been the problem.
Q: Can it be said that the NRD is not enforcing this regulation?
A: As far as we are concerned, we are enforcing it wherever
we can.
If you come to look for problems regarding what they haven't done, there are a
lot of problems.
Are you looking for problems?
Q: I'm looking at the problems and asking for solutions.
A: The issue is whether the enforcement is effective or not.
That's a different thing. If they don't enforce, all the enforcement officers
can be charged in court for not performing their duty as prescribed under the
law.
Yes, there are problems and shortcomings about effectiveness; but to say that we
are not enforcing it... I cannot accept it. I think they are enforcing it.
But we know the difficulty. Those who change their MyKad are given a slip of
paper stating the change of address. We've got hundreds of thousands of MyKad
that have not been collected.
Q: But with the MyKad system, you don't have to make a new card every time
you change your address. The change can be recorded in the microchip. It can be
done instantly at any NRD office.
A: That's because you're clever. Most people are not clever
and they do not want to go to the NRD. You must not make yourself as if you
represent the public. If the ordinary people think like you, then we'd not have
a problem.
Q: When Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was charged under Section 377B for
consensual carnal intercourse against the order of nature, why was his accuser,
Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, not charged for that crime as well?
A: Generally, in criminal cases, the prosecution has to make
a choice. Saiful Bukhari happens to be the person who made the report. If you
also charge the person who made the report, then there will be no charge.
The person who feels he is the aggrieved party makes a report, and on the face
of it, there is a criminal offence, which allows for a charge to be prepared
against someone. But if it was consensual, then Saiful is an accomplice.
The same thing can be seen in cases of statutory rape: not both parties will be
charged. Only one party will be charged, because the complainant is under age.
In a corruption case, either the receiver or the giver will be charged. The
prosecution has to make a choice.
Even in the British or American system, they make a choice if a person wants to
turn Crown witness or if the person is the complainant. Our law is such that
even if the act (of carnal intercourse against the order of nature) was
consensual, it is still an offence.
Saiful Bukhari feels he has been victimised and the public prosecutor has to
make a choice. In this case, the public prosecutor made the choice to charge
Anwar.
You are a public figure. And if your employee complains against you, and if we
just leave it like that, then people will say that ordinary citizens do not have
rights, and you create fear in the minds of complainants. They will never come
out (to complain).
This thing, whether it is rape or unnatural sex, has a stigma. Very few people
would like to make a report.
The public prosecutor, in practice, will decide whether to charge on the basis
of whether there is a prima facie case. If they feel there is a prima facie
case, then the rest of it becomes evidence -- weightage for arguments in the
court between the public prosecutor and the defence counsel.
The most important thing for anybody -- it doesn't matter whether it is Anwar or
not -- is that there is a presumption of innocence until a person has been found
guilty by the court.
The authorities have handled it very well in this particular case. Every time
they want to do something, they give sufficient notice.
Even when the charge was preferred, they just called for Anwar's lawyer to be
present. And when he applied for bail, the court gave him bail. And even when
the public prosecutor asked for bail in one surety, the court said it was not
needed. The bail would be on his own personal bond.
What can an ordinary member of the public see from this? He sees that there is
fairness, there is justice. It doesn't matter what the person's position is.
That's what I want in the justice system -- a system where my rights are
protected if I am the accused or the complainant. Justice has to be done to both
sides.
And to determine justice is done to both sides, you have the due process. You've
got the judiciary to determine so. The independence of the judiciary is
important for the development of rule of law in this country.
For me, the important thing is, if you are a public figure, the standard
required of you is very high.
So, if an ordinary person complains against a very well-known public figure and
the person considers himself to be a victim, then you must decide, "Yes, we will
only charge this (accused) person, and this other person (the complainant) will
be the witness."
Then, it's up to the defence to debunk whatever argument that comes up.
But you must remember, the person has done this to this young man, who was
working for him.
But we are not concluding whether the person is guilty or not. It is for the
court to decide.
We are trying to change the important institutions, like the police and
judiciary, so that they act in compliance with the principle of the rule of law.
Q: Last week, the Bar Council held a forum on the issues facing non-Muslim
families when a member converts to Islam. There were demonstrators outside and
they were threatening to storm the building. There were gatecrashers as well.
Why didn't the police arrest the gatecrashers?
A: We wanted to avoid any untoward incident. If you discuss a
subject that has got emotional elements... (this will) have a lot of sensitive
and emotional problems.
That's why, in the end, we advised them (the Bar Council) not to hold the forum
because it's seditious to discuss the issue, which can also cause (adverse)
reaction from the public. I think it is better for us to prevent it from getting
out of control.
We have allowed so many demonstrations, but we make sure people don't breach the
law.
Q: But they did actually gate-crash the forum and trespassed on private
property.
A: That's why our advice is not to hold such thing because
that creates emotional feelings. When you talk about racial and religious riots,
they occur because of this type of discussion.
In the exercise of freedom, if you upset another group, it can create problems.
If we had stopped them, they would have just rushed into the hall and it would
have been worse. But ultimately, there was no bad incident. The police had
everything under control.
Q: Didn't the people inside the hall have a right to be protected from this?
A: Don't you think they have a right also to make sure they
do not discuss things that are seditious and can anger Muslims? I can look at it
both ways.
Q: If the forum was wrong, the police should have stopped it. Why was the burden
instead placed on ordinary citizens to come in and stop it?
A: I agree with you, but in a situation like that, when emotions run high, the
police always get stuck in the middle. And it causes a lot of problems. That's
why our advice was pre-emptive: Don't do this.
Because we need to control the crowd. If there is a problem with conversion, you
sit down, discuss and negotiate.
But, otherwise, it's as if you are targeting Islam, as if the problem is with
the conversion to Islam. That's the impression that it creates.
You can look objectively from the outside and think "why should they come in?"
But if we had left them alone, maybe worse things would have happened.
Q: People have strong feelings -- on all sides -- particularly the families
involved. This is primarily a family issue, not a religious one. But, does that
mean that if you and I and these officers here have a meeting and people
disagree and barge in...
A: If you and I have a meeting, it's okay, because we are
ordinary people. But the problem is, the forum was organised by the Bar Council
and it was open to the public.
If it's just a meeting by the executive committee and they want to discuss the
subject without publicity, and they don't invite outside parties, then it will
not create that reaction.
The forum created that reaction because it was highly publicised. They invited
people to participate.
How do you feel -- I'm talking about people's feelings, and I can look at things
objectively -- if people only discuss about conversion to Islam. What about
conversion to other religions?
Q: Then, that would be for the Muslims to discuss.
A: If you look at the right to hold a discussion, you can
hold discussions; forget about people's feelings and sensitivities.
But Malaysia has always promoted understanding and harmony. We try to get people
to understand things that are difficult to resolve because of the nature of our
society.
We resolve it quietly by sitting down quietly in a different environment,
different atmosphere, but we do not publicise it because when you publicise, it
creates reaction.
If you ask us to charge the trespassers, then, of course, we'll take statements
from everybody. And then they'll say "These people have breached the law; you
didn't protect us. So, we decided to take the law into our hands". It happens
all over the world, when people take the law into their own hands.
It is also the same with the Bar Council. We know what would happen, so we
wanted to prevent that from happening.
Q: This is the question many are asking after the event: why does it seem
like the police are practising double-standards? Usually, at any other
demonstration, if people gatecrash, you arrest them.
A: There are many times the opposition has organised
demonstration where the police didn't take action.
Even when people tried to gatecrash Kamunting (detention centre), we did not
arrest them; we asked them to leave. It is the same with this case. If we had
left them to their own devices, then I think some people would have got hurt.
 |
News/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 109/2012: Be a Part of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee
