Ethics – an asset to justice

Image via Wikipedia

Getting judges to publicly declare their assets is a significant step towards improving the integrity of our judiciary and changing the perception of the bench.

DARE to declare! That seems to be the slogan of the moment, in the wake of the move by Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and his state executive council to declare their assets publicly last week.

Based on the list of properties, investments and cars along with the loans taken, Penang is being run by a motley crew of wealthy and not-so-rich politicians.

Lim owns two shop lots in Malacca, worth RM435,000 and RM530,000 respectively and has taken RM650,000 in loans to pay for them.

He has RM298,785 in fixed deposits, with more than RM53,000 in earned interests besides investments in Amanah Mutual Bhd and Public Mutual Fund.

But there were no clues about the assets of the spouses and relatives, though. When asked about this, the CM was reported to have replied that the pledge was only for the assets of its leaders to be disclosed.

In the case of Selangor, the declaration of assets by the Mentri Besar and exco members in 2009 was basically in the form of their current earnings in salaries and allowances.

They decided not to include assets owned before the exco members held office, on the grounds of not being able to assure security for them or their family members.

Excos disclosed their assets privately to the MB’s office. The information, however, can be released for legitimate reasons, subject to conditions set and approved by the Special Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and Transparency or Selcat.

For political parties, Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) holds the record for being the first to deliver the promise of declaring the assets of its elected and appointed representatives.

Since 2008, it has made public statutory declarations about what they own.

PSM’s sole MP, Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj – who unseated MIC supremo Datuk S. Samy Vellu in Sungei Siput – has been quoted as saying: “Once you become an assemblyman or MP, you must reveal the assets of yourself, your wife and your immediate family every year.”



An increasing number of countries have adopted similar ethics and even have anti-corruption laws requiring public officials to declare their assets and income, in addition to that of their spouses and dependant children.

In the US, for instance, the main law governing this is the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Based on last year’s declaration, President Barack Obama has assets worth at least US$4mil (RM12.48mil).

The amount includes book royalties, retirement funds, US Treasury bills and notes and other holdings.

In Malaysia, would all elected representatives from both sides of the political divide agree to be subject to such scrutiny?

As it is, many of our YBs are seen to be extremely well-heeled. They always claim to champion the cause of the rakyat but live in mansions worth millions and lead luxurious lifestyles.

Of course, they can always declare that they were already rich before being elected or appointed.

So, instead of waiting until they are elected, why not make it mandatory for all nominated candidates for Parliament and state seats to disclose their wealth and means of income and those of their immediate family?

Perhaps one way to ensure this is through compulsion – by an Act of Parliament.

One wonders if there would still be many people clamouring to be elected representatives or appointed representatives under such rules.

But we are at least making progress when it comes to the judiciary.

Chief Justice Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria has made a laudable move towards getting judges to declare their assets.

It is indeed a significant step towards improving transparency and integrity of our judiciary and changing the current public perception of the bench.

“I’m sure all of you have nothing to fear, so we have to work together with the MACC on this matter,” the CJ said at the judges’ conference last week.

The MACC has since set up a task force to identify the process under the civil service for the implementation.

The CJ has also told judges to maintain the independence of the judiciary and not to put up with any interference, including from their spouses, when making their decisions.

According to Transparency International’s Bribe Payers Index of 2008, the judiciary was perceived by surveyed business executives to be one of the most corrupt institutions in the country.

Business executives surveyed by the World Economic Forum Global competitiveness Report 2010-2011 identified the judicial system as being under enough influence of members of government, certain individuals and companies to constitute a competitive disadvantage.

They also found the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and challenge government actions and/or regulations as another disadvantage.

The CJ’s move to boost the integrity of the judiciary is noteworthy in view of such negative perceptions.

The country cannot afford to have a judiciary perceived to be ethically compromised. It would be a millstone around the neck of any anti-corruption strategy.

As such, it needs the full support and cooperation of the people, members of the Bar, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and more so from the political leaders.

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes to share these wise words of Gandhi: “There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supercedes all other courts.”

Malaysia's left-wing political parties hoping to soar

Tweet

Left-wing parties hoping to soar

Analysis By Baradan Kuppusamy

Left-wing parties are making a comeback in a political environment dominated by both race-based and multi-racial parties all pushing the same democratic centralism political ideology.

PARTI Rakyat Malaysia, a small but tradition-rich party, is causing some consternation among top PKR leaders with its announcement this week that it will contest in three parliamentary constituencies held by PKR.

Its newly elected president Dr Rohana Ariffin said that the party, founded in 1955 by Ahmad Boestaman upon his release from ISA, would contest in the Balik Pulau, Selayang and Petaling Jaya Selatan constituencies in the forthcoming general election.

In an interview, she said PRM was against three-cornered fights but hoped to hold discussions with Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and find an amicable solution.

“We are keen to contest in the three seats,” she told The Star, adding that Balik Pulau in Penang was a traditional PRM seat while Selayang was also a former seat with hardcore members and Petaling Jaya was where the party's headquarters was located.

“We have many supporters in the three constituencies,” she said. “We are only asking for three seats out of 222 in the country.”

Dr Rohana said if an Opposition government were to be elected in the next general election, their participation would be crucial because they would offer alternative views from within.

“Diversity should be promoted and encouraged and many contrasting views make up a good government unlike with Barisan Nasional where Umno's views dominate,” said the academician.



All well and good but PKR is in no mood to concede three of the best constituencies now held by party veterans just because PRM is asking for it, tradition-rich party or not.

The Selayang constituency is held by PKR treasurer William Leong, who did well in 2008 defeating his opponents in a three-cornered fight, including a PRM candidate Koh Su Yong, who polled about 2% of the votes.

Koh had stood in 2004 under a PKR banner and polled over 17,000 votes, losing nevertheless. His 2008 performance was lacklustre under PRM, a measure of what the right party can do for a candidate.

Although PRM has traditionally contested in Balik Pulau and never won, it believes it has a better chance now.

Currently, it is held by PKR newcomer Yusmadi Yusuf, who is very active in Balik Pulau as well as in Penang and in Parliament.

Petaling Jaya Selatan, on the other hand is held by Hee Loy Sian, who keeps a low profile.

PRM is hallowed in the left-wing history of the country, having been founded by Ahmad Boestaman and brought together all the Malay left in various organisations like KMM, API and other small groups.

The party was a member of the Socialist Front and contested in various municipal councils and in general election in the 1960s but the winning results were mixed.

It had to watch out for the Special Branch on one hand and convince the people to win elections on the other, making for difficult choices.

PRM survived the 1970s under Kassim Ahmad and after him, Datuk Kampu Radjoo, and finally came under the control of Dr Syed Husin Ali in the 1980s.

In 2003, he dissolved PRM and led its members into PKR but a small faction opposed the move and carried on under the PRM banner, which had a cow's head as the party symbol.

The breakaway faction was recognised by the Registrar of Societies and in the election for PRM office bearers held in Petaling Jaya last week, Dr Rohana, the acting president since 2010, was elected PRM president.

Another small, left-wing party, the Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), is also having trouble with Pakatan Rakyat, especially DAP, over seat allocation.Image via Wikipedia

In 2008, it contested under the PKR banner in three seats and won one with its president Dr Nasir Hashim in Kota Damansara and Dr D. Jeyakumar in Sungei Siput Parliamentary seat but secretary-general S. Arutchelvam lost in the Semenyih state seat in Selangor.

The tussle with the DAP in 2008 was for the Jalong seat in Perak which the PSM wanted to contest because of years of grassroots work there.

In the end, they contested as an independent after negotiation with the DAP broke down. In the three-cornered fight that followed, PSM lost to DAP's Hew Yit Fong who, a year later, defected to Barisan Nasional together with two PKR assemblymen, giving away the state.

In retrospect, left-wing parties are making a comeback in a political environment dominated by both race-based and multi-racial parties all pushing the same democratic centralism political ideology.

They have no socialist trappings to speak off and only want to run a better government with the same foreign investment and development strategies.

The left parties are making a comeback in a big way overseas but without the violent themes of the past.
Their ideologies and policies would provide a fresh alternative to the dominant political parties on both sides of the divide here.

Both Barisan Nasional, that is trying to win hearts and minds with its many 1Malaysia reforms, and Pakatan Rakyat - with its “me-rakyatkan” economy initiatives in Selangor - could well use another party with a socialist bend to speak for and champion the people.

The left-wing parties have important things to contribute to the debate on national issues like privatisation of healthcare, food security and even on the government service tax.

Their re-emergence on the political scene should be welcomed and encouraged as these left parties have dedicated leadership who will go the extra mile for the people.

Related posts:

PRM, the Seladang's Resurgence in Malaysian politics?  
Winning over the majority of the Malay Muslim psyches and votes! 

Malaysia should do away with outdated laws to meet human needs

Tweet

Malaysia should do away with outdated laws

M.Veera Pandiyan

Malaysia still has the Internal Security Act 1960 -- which allows for the detention without trial of people deemed to be threats to national se-curity -- for more than half a century.

The phrase "the law is an ass" is attributed to Charles Dickens.

It originates from Oliver Twist after the character Mr Bumble is told: "The law supposes that your wife acts under your direction".

What one of the foremost classical writers of English literature actually wrote was: "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass, an idiot."

No, he wasn't using grammar akin to the Manglish being taught in our schools today. It was just that the rules of the language were not quite defined during his era.

But as then as in now, many laws can be described as asinine. They have become meaningless through the passage of time but are still in force and have become subjects of ridicule.

In the United States for example, incestuous marriages are not deemed illegitimate in the southern state of Alabama.

Another law in Mississippi states that if one is a parent to two illegitimate children, he or she can be jailed for at least a month.

In New York, adultery is still a crime and one can be fined US$25 for flirting.

It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing body-hugging clothes but she can go topless in public, provided she is not doing it for any business.

In Denver, Colorado, the law states that dog catchers must notify dogs of impounding by posting for three consecutive days, a notice on a tree in the city park.

Apparently it is also unlawful to lend one's vacuum cleaner to a next-door neighbour.

More than eight women are not allowed to live in the same house in the state of Tennessee because that would constitute a brothel, while Encyclopaedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

In President Barack Obama's home state of Illinois, it is now illegal to wear sagging pants. A new law requires pants to be "secured at the waist to prevent the pants from falling below the hips, causing exposure to the person or the person's undergarments."

And there are many comical laws still in force in the United Kingdom.

For example, it is illegal to die in Britain's Houses of Parliament and sticking a postage stamp bearing the Queen upside down is deemed an act of treason.

In Liverpool, where footballers and fans tend to strip off their shirts in celebration of goals, it is illegal for a woman to be topless -- unless she is a clerk in a shop selling tropical fish.

As for the outdated legislation in Malaysia, they are anything but funny.

We still have too many laws that allow for detention without trial, contravening the fundamental principles of human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and other international conventions.

Malaysia still has the Internal Security Act 1960 -- which allows for the detention without trial of people deemed to be threats to national se-curity -- for more than half a century.

For the record, the ISA has not been used against political opponents since Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister on April 3, 2009.

But it remains in force, despite calls for its repeal by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), the Association for the Pro-motion of Human Rights (Proham), the Bar Council, politicians and civil society organisations.

So do other equally outmoded and detestable edicts such as the Emer-gency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969, the Re-stricted Residence Act 1933, Pre-vention of Crime Act 1959 and the Banishment Act 1959.

Under the EO, detainees can be held for 60 days with a possible extension of two years or more without trial.

In 2005, the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police affirmed that the EO violates international human rights and called for its repeal, saying that it had "outlived its purpose and facilitated the abuse of fundamental liberties".

The detention of six Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) leaders, including Sungai Siput MP Dr Michael Jeyakumar under the EO since July 2 for "allegedly being involved with foreign and subversive elements", has again fuelled suspicions of such misuse.

The six were among 30 arrested on June 25 for allegedly supporting Bersih 2.0 and possessing T-shirts with faces of communist leaders on them.

At a time when public confidence in the police and credibility in the rule of law are being questioned, the continued detention of Dr Jeyaku-mar under the EO can only result in more rancour against the Government.

Dr Jeyakumar, the giant killer who thrashed Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) supremo S. Samy Vellu in 2008, may be an unwavering socialist committed to his cause, but he certainly does not fit the image of a dangerous or subversive element.

Enough Malaysians, including his colleagues in the medical fraternity have vouched for his humility and integrity, his selfless passion to help the poor and his peaceful approach to politics.

It's really a bit of a stretch to associate Dr Jeyakumar with intending to "wage war against the King" and instigating the overthrow of the Government.

But if the authorities indeed have any such proof, they should charge him and the others using existing criminal laws.

In the bigger picture, Malaysia as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, is not only expected to meet the principles of human rights but also be seen to be respecting and upholding the rights of its people.

Malaysians deserve to be free from laws that breach basic standards.

Law to meet human needs

Putik Lada By Genevieve Tan

We sometimes forget a simple fact about the law: as our needs grow and change, the law can grow and change with those needs.

WHY do we have the law? In other words, what is the law essentially about?

The law is about our needs. Where there is a need, whether it is to eat or to be protected from harm, the law is created to address those needs.

When you want to understand the law, you need to first understand what is the need behind that law.

For example, Article 9 of the Federal Constitution sets out our right to move and live in any part of Malaysia. Why? Because we need to move and settle wherever we want in our country.

When we needed to protect ourselves from being robbed, the law addressed that need by creating section 390 of the Penal Code setting out the offence of robbery.

Simply put, the law accommodates human needs. With that logic, how can we say that we cannot be protected and loved by the law? How can we also say that the law does not serve us?

We sometimes tend to forget. We also sometimes forget another simple fact about the law: as our needs grow and change, the law can grow and change with those needs.

For example, in response to the public’s need to counter corruption, parliament passed the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and subsequently replaced it with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.

To combat money laundering and terrorism financing, the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 was passed.

Mind you, these laws were passed less than ten years ago. Hence, whether or not these laws are effective, the point remains: the law continues to change as it follows our needs.

What does this say? Like us, our Government realises that they have to respond to our needs to curb corruption or to deal with the problem of money laundering.

After all, our Government, like many other governments, serves us, the people, as we serve them. Without each other, our Government cannot work and we cannot live in this country at all.

The law creates regulations. Without the law, we are without order, stability, regulation and consequently, we would be without peace.

Every piece of legal document that you see came from a source. In Malaysia, we wrote these basic laws into a document called the Federal Constitution.

In Britain, the place from where we derived a lot of our laws, it has no written constitution.

So, if we think of this logically, there was no natural source for laws that outlawed one kind of human or another. There simply was the love to protect and support our needs.

And what was the fifth basic law that was passed by Malaysia?

This is set out in Article 5 of our Federal Constitution which states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, save in accordance with law.”

What was the source before that fifth basic law?

“This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

This is my third article on the law and if you noticed, I repeat certain themes. Without any disguise, I see the law as a very simple thing. It even protects companies.

For example, section 222 of the Companies Act, 1965 allows a company to be protected from court proceedings if it makes such an application to the court.

Allow me to show you how much more simple and powerful it can get.

The law creates protection, officers of protection and leaders to protect the law. The law was created to love us.

Take another example, the issue of teenage pregnancy. Teenage mothers and their babies are protected by the usual criminal laws and the Child Act 2001.

However, the current laws on unwed teenage mothers do not provide adequate support systems for these mothers who are abandoned by the fathers of the babies and their own families.

As a result, many of these mothers are forced out into the streets or into shelters.

If we want to change the current laws to address the needs of unwed teenage mothers and their babies, we actually can!

Just like with the Anti-Corruption Act, we can act on our need to punish unwed fathers who have abandoned their pregnant teenage partners and update our laws to give better support to these mothers.

Let’s not forget that blame and causation is not the issue here. The issue here is that we have the power to change the law if we love our needs enough.

As public citizens, we are the reason why there are laws in the first place. As public citizens, we outnumber lawyers, ministers, doctors and accountants put together. So by numbers alone, we as public citizens have more power with the law than our professional colleagues do.

Each and every one of us is more powerful than we think. After all, we have the law that was created to love us and to address our needs.

Like in my last article Mirror, mirror on the wall, let’s just keep things simple.

Let’s use the law and ourselves to treat everyone with courtesy, morality and love.

> Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.

Bersih rally awakening the young voters in Malaysian politics; Registration easy & simple

Tweet

Awakening the young voters

ANALYSIS By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Pakatan Rakyat is seeking to keep the rally’s momentum going, hoping that it can be sustained until an early general election is held. 

NOW that the Bersih 2.0 rally is over, what’s in store for the divided politics of the nation? It’s a question on the minds of many Malaysians.

The Bersih 2.0 rally was a success by some measure because Pakatan Rakyat supporters braved police restrictions, roadblocks and barbed wire to gather in the city centre calling on the Government to institute electoral reform.

Their eight-point demand included issues that the opposition had been campaigning on for many years, like a clean electoral roll, reforming postal voting and a minimum of 21 days for campaigning.

These are fundamentals of a basic election system in a democratic society and few citizens would find this objectionable.

Saturday’s rally, therefore, had an unprecedented impact on society at large and on the election system, comparable to the March 8 political tsunami.

While Saturday’s rally was smaller in size compared to Bersih’s first rally in November 2007, the effects were the same – the awakening of young people to political action to rally for a basic right in defiance of the police.

In 2007, Bersih had the run of the city with huge numbers converging on the Istana to deliver a memorandum to the King.

Anwar called the 2007 Bersih rally an unqualified success.

Three months later, a general election was called that saw a loose coalition, that later became Pakatan Rakyat, winning five state governments and denying Barisan Nasional a two-thirds majority.

This time, too, Anwar is expecting an early election, probably by the fourth quarter of this year to capitalise on the Bersih 2.0 momentum.

709 pictures of the BERSIH march. Malaysians unite!

https://picasaweb.google.com/104201905154669598873/Bersih2Rally090711?authkey=Gv1sRgCN2Bo8PKqdzNIQ#slideshow/5627287829029822

Voices from Malaysian: 

 Patrick Teoh

Teoh has come a very long way from his days as an announcer on the Rediffusion private radio station before establishing himself as one of the pioneers in mobile discos. In fact, till today people still associate Teoh with his voice though he is also into the arts and theatre.

Watch and listen his Video:


By PR’s reckoning, Bersih 2.0 was a major success and big enough to wipe out the series of by-election losses they suffered in recent months and the spate of defections from PKR to BN.

The internal turmoil caused by PKR’s direct elections that also saw many people disheartened with PKR has also been eclipsed.

PR sought to keep its Bersih 2.0 momentum going by organising a large rally in Penang, a PR state, on Monday that was well-attended.

It is hoping that the momentum would be sustained until an early general election is held.

It needs to step up its criticism of BN, organise more Bersih rallies in other states and perhaps take nationwide action to keep the momentum going.

For this reason alone, it is unlikely that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak would call an election this year.

He has to put some distance between the Government and the effects of the Bersih 2.0 rally.

Another reason for Najib to delay the general election is the urban voters whose preference is still with the opposition. He has to come up with imaginative programmes to win over the urban voters whose concerns are very different from the rural electorate.

Najib is also due to meet the Pope next week and hopes to establish a diplomatic relationship with the Vatican. He hopes to consolidate the Christian vote, which accounts for about 9% of the 14 million voters.

On another point, Bersih 2.0 leaders like Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan tried hard to convince Malaysians that her organisation was an independent body and was acting independently.

It is, however, abundantly clear that Bersih 2.0 was an opposition affair from start to finish.

The police handling of the Bersih 2.0 rally is also under the spotlight. Although they were heavy-handed, there was a relative absence of violence except for one death of a PKR activist that was attributed to a heart condition.

The low level of violence as a whole also limited the electoral backlash against the Government.

Therefore, it is an opportune time to release all those arrested, including the six leaders of Parti Sosialis Malaysia who have been detained under the Emergency Ordinance for allegedly reviving communism.

The Bersih 2.0 rally did not come anywhere near those in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Syria. But it will probably have an impact in the coming general election.

The rally proved its point that a large number of Malaysians can gather, despite police action, and march peacefully.

But Bersih 2.0 is unlikely to be a game changer in the way the first Bersih rally was.

Registration easy & simple

By SHAHANAAZ HABIB and RASHVINJEET S. BEDI sunday@thestar.com.my

PUTRAJAYA: Voter registration numbers have gone up significantly, thanks to efforts by political parties.
But some 40% of the new voters they have registered turned out to be ineligible.

“Some are dead, underage or already registered voters,” said Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof.

“We verify with the National Registration Department (NRD) those who are genuine and get rid of the names of those who are not. This makes it tiring because we have to keep checking,” he told The Star.

Despite this, he said, political parties still registered the highest number, bringing in more half of the new eligible voters.

“Compared to universities and NGOs, the voters we get from political parties are a lot more,” he said.
For May alone, 52% of new eligible voters were registered by political parties.

Twenty per cent were registered through post offices and 13% by government departments.

The EC, meanwhile, roped in 10% of the new voters through its counters and outreach programme. Universities and NGOs helped to register 3% and 2% new voters respectively.

Abdul Aziz added that the EC had appointed political parties, NGOs and universities as assistant registrars to help register new voters, paying RM1 for every clean and confirmed new voter these organisations bring in.

“If they register 1,000 new voters and only 600 are genuine, we pay them RM600,” he said. Between 2008 and 2009, there were 10 million registered voters in the country and another 4.3 million eligible voters who were not registered.

This year, the total number of registered voters increased to 12 million and eligible unregistered voters dropped to 3.7 million.

“We have made registration easy and simple. You can go to the post office, youth bodies, universities, colleges, government departments, NGOs and political parties to register,” he added.

Abdul Aziz said the Malaysian EC was the only one in the world that appointed political parties to assist in registering new voters.

He pointed out that it made sense to rope in political parties. “We appoint an average of two assistant registrars for each state seat. And because they have an interest, they work very hard to register new voters.

“When we do the voter registration ourselves, the response is not very good. We go to events like TV3's Jom Heboh to register new voters but it is difficult for people to come forward.

“This has to do with attitude. People ask what benefit they get by registering as voters. Some people do not have the spirit. They ask what happens if they don't register and when they find out no action is taken, they leave it as it is. Only those who really love the country and would like to choose their own leaders would voluntarily go and register as voters.”

Abdul Aziz also advised the people to vote in their current place of residence as this was stipulated in the law. This would also resolve the issue of phantom voters, where voters allegedly stay in a different place from where they cast their vote.

He said people should not feel attachment to their hometown and balik kampung to cast their votes.
“If I stay in Shah Alam, I shouldn't go back to Penang or my hometown to vote,” he said.

He estimated that about 30% to 40% of Malaysians voted in a different place or state than where they lived.

“I have no power to force them to vote where they live. I can only explain and persuade them,” he added.