Showing posts with label Lim Kit Siang. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lim Kit Siang. Show all posts

Monday, December 20, 2021

Dynasties... are they a problem? (updated & reposted)


So let's be clear about this: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with children inheriting a busyness or political position from their parents - so long as they are capable and will do as well, if not better. Indeed, this is perfectly natural a phenomenon since some qualities do get passed down the genetic line. 

Even more often, children of famous people will achieve fame on their own terms in a totally different field - but just as often, they get eclipsed by their father's celebrity and end up struggling with an identity crisis.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of politicians I like and admire - Kit Siang, Anwar, Karpal, to name a few - passing their legacies on to the next generation, so long as their children are equally, if not more, admirable. In the case of all three, I'm pleased that all their progeny have turned out fairly capable and electable. Can't say the same for Mahathir's kids, though... or Najib's... or Badawi's psychopathic drug-peddling son-in-law.



Friday, December 5, 2008

Martin Jalleh on Nazri the Incontinent Nazi


NAZRI PLAYS-PLAYS AND POOH-POOHS IN PARLIAMENT!

by Martin Jalleh

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, has a very long tradition of treating parliament as his personal playground where he proudly leaves a trail of his political pooh behind.

When he fails in an intelligent debate in parliament or when an answer deserts him, leaving him dumb, he dishes out a diatribe, creates a dramatic diversion or distraction, and/or goes into a delirium.

Nazri acts tough, talks and thinks as though he is the PM, or he knows everything, threatens and taunts those who stand up to him, throws a tantrum together with some theatrics when things don’t go his way.

Past and present Speakers or their deputies have always given the Minister full and free access to the House to go into a fit or a frolic or to flaunt his foolishness according to his whim and fancy.

Nazri's rewriting of history on 6 November 2008 adds to the list of growing examples of the Minister treating the House as a place where he “play-plays” by being provocative and pokes fun at serious issues.

He told Parliament that former Lord President Salleh Abas and other senior judges involved in the judicial crisis 20 years ago were not “sacked” but had their "services terminated early". Yet, in September 2006 he had himself taken part in a ‘1988 Judicial Crisis - To review or not?’ forum attended by 1,000 people who had heard him defend the sacking of the judges!

Karpal Singh (right) insisted that action be taken against Nazri for allegedly lying to the House. The latter in a press conference conceded making a mistake, adding he had no intention of misleading the House. But Nazri refused to explain in nor apologise to Parliament, where he first made his infamous revelation. Telling the press would suffice! For the first time, a press conference took precedence over Parliament!

Karpal persisted. Deputy Speaker Wan Junaidi (below, left) waved his wand and everything was back to square one. Gobind Singh told Wan that his decision was very wanting. He got suspended for two days. Nazri get off scot-free – to nurture more nonsense.

Nazri said Gobind was suspended “because he challenged the decision of the speaker. The reason why you don't see us (BN MPs) get suspended is because we don't go against the decision of the speaker". Since when has the Speaker decided against a BN MP over a controversial issue?

Nazri has many fans and followers amongst the BN MPs, the latest being Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (Umno-Pasir Salak, left) whose sexual innuendo remarks in parliament were recently revealed and who called a DAP MP “bloody bastard” but escaped punishment (rings a bell?).

A glance at Nazri’s track record and tales (in italics) – a major part of which I have highlighted before and condensed here below – will show that the Minister overseeing parliamentary affairs has in fact in the recent past mislead and made a mockery of Parliament, with the Chair condoning his monkeying around.

2004: Nazri Bulls and Blunders

May: Suhakam’s report is never meant to be debated in Parliament. Nazri was wrong. It is a legislative requirement for Suhakam, a creation of Parliament, to submit annual reports to Parliament so that its findings can be debated and its recommendations deliberated on.

2005: Nazri Bluffs and Bullies


April: The Cabinet’s plan to form a select committee on water privatization was dropped because the King wanted water privatisation to be in place by the end of the year. Lim Kit Siang (LKS) told Nazri not to drag the King into the issue and added that “…the Royal address is the policy pronouncement of the government of the day”.

April: Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia cannot be circulated in the country as this could be seen as an effort to spread Christianity among the Malays….the prohibition had been in force since Independence and was in line with the Constitution (Star, 13.04.05). A week later the PM said that there was no such ban.

June: Nazri shouted racist and bloody racist at DAP MP M Kula Segaran 41 times. His “racist” fit which the then Speaker deemed fit to allow, was intended to divert attention from a dispute involving two government backbenchers!

Sept: If every issue raised requires a select committee, then perhaps we also need to discuss that former Communist Party of Malaya secretary-general Chin Peng is DAP’s Father of Independence.— This was Nazri’s childish response to LKS’s suggestion of the setting-up of three new Parliamentary Select Committees.

2006: Nazri Barks and Boasts


March: Nazri branded DAP MP Teresa Kok an Islam hater after she questioned the directive that all policewomen must wear the tudung during official parades. Teresa protested. However the then Deputy Speaker merely told the minister that the remark was unnecessary.

June: Nazri told parliament: There is no basis for the allegation of corruption in the judiciary as contained in a letter written by former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid… the case has been investigated by the Government, the ACA and the AG.

Syed Idid replied that the allegations were “never really investigated”. This was confirmed by a former AG Abu Talib Othman who added that “on the other hand, the poor judge who wrote it was investigated”!

July: The presence of foreigners, including those with IMM13 documents, does not cause social, security and economic problems in Sabah. A leader of the Sabah Progressive Party (then a part of the ruling coalition) accused Nazri of being ignorant and said “it would be better for him to keep his mouth shut….”

July: The Government is satisfied with the ACA’s performance. Param Cumaraswamy a former TI Malaysia president pointed out: “It is not the satisfaction of the Government that the ACA is handling its responsibilities effectively that matters. It is the satisfaction of the public that matters most.”

July: The ACA is free to act on its own. In 2003, when he (who was then Entrepreneur Development Minister) was under investigation for corruption, Nazri had said that he would advise the Cabinet to replace the then ACA Investigations Director with whom he had a war of words with!

Sept: You are just jealous because I am standing! – Nazri told wheelchair-bound Karpal Singh who had urged the Deputy Speaker to restrain the minister as he had “gone crazy” by racing through the text of his 80-page winding-up document, refusing to allow any interjections for clarification.

The Deputy Speaker later said that Nazri’s remarks were “improper” – without making a ruling that the remarks be withdrawn!

2007: Nazri Goes Berserk


March: The government is not prepared to study and research current election laws or revamp the Election Commission (EC) because in the past 50 years we have not revamped any ministry. This was Nazri’s response to then EC chairman’s call for an independent commission to oversee changes in the election laws and regulations.

March: I think these NGOs are stupid... We don’t need another system, independent inquiry and all that. Nazri dismissed calls by rights groups for an independent inquiry into the graft and sexual assault allegations against then ACA director-general Zulkipli Mat Noor

And so for the first time in the country’s history we had the police investigating the (then) chief of the ACA and at the same time the ACA investigating the top police officer of the nation -- and the Attorney-General deciding later that both were clean! The whole world was laughing at the government’s stupidity.

April: It's like ants attracted to sugar… Malaysians leave to make money but they will return. You don’t have to press the panic button yet. This was Nazri’s response to LKS’s concern over the alarming migration trend. He forgot that his boss had in 2004 offered a host of incentives to lure an estimated 30,000 of Malaysia ’s graduates working overseas to return home. Pak Lah panicked?

May: Bernard Dompok’s resignation was influenced by Lim Kit Siang. Dompok resigned as the chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity because he had disagreed with Nazri over the committee’s scope of duties. Dompok’s reply to his colleague: “It’s a cheap shot!”

May: “...they should not apologise to Fong or the DAP for their remarks. – Nazri came to the defence of the two MPs who had made sexist remarks following Fong Po Kuan’s observations of leaks in the Parliament building.

June: Singapore is not a real country, it is a small island. Singapore’s population is just three to four million and there are no opportunities for corruption, unlike in our country. Nazri’s inference of larger countries being more prone to corruption and smaller countries being less corrupt was wrong.

June: Malaysia will never develop as long as we have people like Lim (Kit Siang). All these (corruption allegations) are lies. Why are you so stupid? Where are the allegations? You have no brains. Stupid, stupid, stupid...! Nazri turned nasty in a heated exchange with LKS (left).

The then Speaker said that he could not cite Nazri for using unparliamentary language because “such language was used all the time”. Grinning like a school bully having his last say, Nazri added to his string of “stupid” salvoes: "OK, tidak cerdik (not smart) then. It’s like stupid too."

Aug: The then Chief Justice (CJ) Ahmad Fairuz had advocated the abolition of Common Law, and replacing it with an Islamic legal system. Nazri denied on behalf of Fairuz, in Parliament, that Fairuz had made such a proposal. LKS provided Nazri with a newspaper tape transcript as proof. He played down its significance, claiming that the CJ was pressed by reporters to offer his opinion!

Aug: When Karpal Singh revealed the name of a Federal Court judge who had not written judgments in as many as 35 cases (in response to the then CJ’s challenge to show proof) Nazri declared: "The writing of judgments was not the only criterion to promote judges”!

Aug: When the country did not have a Chief Judge for eight months, Nazri insisted that there is no law that says the Chief Justice cannot act as the Chief Judge of Malaya”. The Bar Council showed him that he was wrong!

Aug: There's no need for such a judicial commission (in charge of judicial appointments) as there is no crisis in our judiciary... No crisis, no problems. I don't see any scandal. These are all efforts by the opposition to create distrust and erode public confidence in the judiciary. This was in sharp contrast to Sultan Azlan Shah, who later expressed his grave concern over the “disquiet” about and “serious criticisms” against the judiciary at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference.

Sept: ... the lawyers' march was "unbecoming." (On 26th September, 2,000 lawyers walked to Putrajaya to submit a memorandum on judicial reform to the PM.) It was in sharp contrast to Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan’s statement: “We are walking for justice, we want judicial reform. Lawyers don't walk every day. When lawyers walk, something is wrong.”


Oct: Whistleblowers in the Lingam Tape scandal could be protected under the Witness Protection Bill tabled recently in Parliament. — Nazri later admitted there was no such bill and blamed his press secretary for failing to issue a clarification to the media!

Nov: ... it would be pointless to try and understand the reason behind the rally as the brains of opposition members do not function well…the wires in their heads are severed. I don’t understand why they claim that the EC is unfair.

Nazri was commenting on the march on 10 November of 40,000 people to submit a memorandum calling for electoral reforms to the King. Ironically, a few weeks earlier, Nazri had told opposition MPs in parliament “not to get over-excited about the ‘independence’ of the EC, when it does not exist."

Nov: “Don’t try to drag the King into this. The King and the people are behind us. They (the opposition) are afraid to face the next elections. If you’ve no courage, don’t become a pondan (wimp).” If there is anyone who has tried to make use of the King it is Nazri himself (see above)!


2008: Nazri Brays Brazenly

May: "The government did not order the commission. We merely told them there were concerns about the legal implications and it could create problems later." Nazri blamed the EC for the last-minute decision to cancel the use of indelible ink in the March polls. The then EC chairman had said it was a Cabinet decision.

Nazri also told parliament that no action would be taken against those who had lodged police reports saying that indelible ink was being smuggled into the country during the last general election... because they have believed the rumours they heard were true!

June: The Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BBC) was upset with Nazri for branding it childish and gangster-like for removing a barricade at the Parliament lobby put up to ban reporters from the lobby.

I am expecting the BBC to recommend to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to sack me as a minister. If they dare not do that on Monday, then shut up and don’t talk anymore
– Nazri lambasted the BBC chairman.

Oct: The government does not have a problem with setting up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) but there is “strong evidence” that certain quarters disagreed with the proposal.

Nazri was responding to LKS’s query as to why the IPCMC was not established although the IGP had said that the police would agree if the government insisted on it. When a PAS MP questioned Nazri on who these “certain quarters” were, Nazri evaded the question and took a dig at PAS instead.

Misfortune

It is very obvious that the Minister in the PM’s Department who is also the overseer of parliamentary affairs and the de facto Law Minister, is a misfit in Parliament and an unmitigated mistake to the country.


As a loudmouth and loose cannon, Nazri would no doubt take Bolehland to greater heights in hype, hypocrisy and of course, hysterics and histrionics in Parliament!

The public cannot be blamed for its increasing perception that the Speaker and his deputies have been blind, biased, beholden to the Umno-dominated Government and begging and bending backwards to do its bidding. They have allowed Nazri to get away with impunity whilst appearing to be impartial.

Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz should be included in the posse who will mount up and ride into the sunset together with the soon-to-be-retired PM.

Martin Jalleh
4 November 2008





Thursday, November 6, 2008

Martin Jalleh on the new Chief Justice

“Imagine having two Umno men at the top of the judicial hierarchy, one as AG and the other as CJ. You will be able to literally get away with murder." - Raja Petra Kamarudin


Of Pretentious Promises, Parachuting Promotions & Pressured Praise

By Martin Jalleh | 5 Nov 2008


The Palace of Justice has a new “prince” – Zaki Tun Azmi. He was promptly sworn in as Chief Justice (CJ) soon after the Conference of Rulers went through the procedural motions and provided consent to his extraordinary elevation.

His Lordship had leap-frogged from the legal profession into the Federal Court last September. Two months later he was proclaimed Court of Appeal (CoA) president. Now (almost a year later) he is proudly perched on the highest post in the judiciary.

Zaki’s political “parachuting” has no precedent. But be not perturbed. Did not the PM promise (especially after his party had quickened his passage into the sunset) that he would produce profound changes in the judiciary?

Indeed, before he packs his bags and participates fully in Umno's early retirement plan for him, Pak Lak would prove to the whole of Bolehland that he still has the penchant to produce the very opposite of what he initially promises.

In April this year, at a Malaysian Bar Council dinner where he paid tribute to former Lord President Salleh Abas and four former Supreme Court judges all of whom were sacked in 1988 by Dr M, Pak Lah had promised the setting up of a Judicial Appointments Commission to help the PM choose judges.

Pak Lah had also very proudly declared then that such a step was to “renew the people’s trust in the judiciary” and to “make the process of nominating, appointing and promoting judges more transparent and representative.”

In his perfect closing the PM pleaded poignantly, pointedly and so passionately: “Let us move on... The rakyat wants movement and progress, not continuing strife... Let us write this proud and new chapter together!”

About five months later, the PM picked and plucked out an Umno lawyer from the Bar, parked and planted him in the Court of Appeal for a while, so as to place him at the pinnacle of the judiciary at the opportune time!

The PM’s preference of the most junior judge in the Federal Court to take the place of the outgoing CJ implied that it was the government’s perception that there were no senior serving Federal Court judges qualified for or worthy of the job.

It also implied that the government had practically no confidence in the judiciary... and ironically in itself! What a proud new chapter! In fact, Pak Lah was writing a whole new book by himself – on how to catapult a lawyer into the CJ’s chair.

The PM who had made plenty of pious pronouncements on collaboration, consultation and commitment towards what he had called a “judicial renaissance”, looked very pleased when his controversial candidate received his papers from the King to be crowned the new CJ.

At the opening of the 21st LawAsia conference in Kuala Lumpur recently, Pak Lah presented Zaki as "a man who likes reforms" – just like the PM himself – who loves to talk and take the rakyat for a ride on reforms?

Predicted


Many had predicted Zaki’s promotion to CJ. When the latter was made CoA president, Lim Kit Siang (who was then the opposition leader in parliament) called the appointment “a prelude” to Zaki becoming “Umno's Chief Justice.”

Activist lawyer Haris Ibrahim (left) who runs the popular The People's Parliament blog had sent two petitions to the King, the latest containing 25,700 signatures urging His Majesty to appoint the seniormost judge of the Federal Court to the position of CJ.

Pakatan Rakyat had also sent a memorandum urging the King to defer the appointment of the CJ and to consider public opinion. Aliran was “shocked that a person who is so junior in rank with nothing outstanding about him should now outrank all the senior, serving judges...”

Can anyone be more accurate than [political blogger and ISA detainee] Raja Petra (left)?:

“Imagine having two Umno men at the top of the judicial hierarchy, one as AG and the other as CJ. You will be able to literally get away with murder (as if they are not already getting away with it).”

Writing before Zaki’s amazing ascent, Kim Quek, a well-known political commentator, had described Zaki as “the person planted to the highest court to succeed Fairuz.” He listed the reasons why Zaki would be “a poor candidate for any judicial appointment.”

Zaki was a key player in Umno. He was chairman of the party’s election committee, deputy chairman of its disciplinary board of appeal, party legal advisor, etc. As Umno’s legal man, he was involved with “the party’s myriad scandalous financial misadventures that were bailed out by the government (of Dr M)."

“Apart from acting as Umno’s nominee, Zaki also has held directorships in scores of major companies. Even if he has the superhuman capability to totally severe his umbilical cord to the ruling party and his commercial interests to eliminate conflict of interests, there is still the insurmountable problem of public perception.”

Kim Quek had also questioned Zaki’s “moral integrity arising from his controversial marriage and divorce from his second wife Nor Hayati Yahaya,” who was half his age and whom he married in a ceremony conducted by a kadi from Thailand in a textile shop in Perlis in March 2005.

“They separated three months later. In the messy divorce that ensued, it was revealed that Zaki burned the original marriage certificate to hide the marriage from his first wife. Further, the marriage was ruled by the Syarah court as illegal.

“Following the revelation of Zaki’s marital troubles, he resigned as deputy chairman of Umno’s disciplinary board, for which he told the press: ‘Considering that members of the disciplinary board are of the highest integrity, I have made this decision following reports in the media...’”

“The question we must ask now is: If Zaki is morally unfit to serve in Umno’s disciplinary board, how could he be considered morally fit to be a federal court judge, not to mention his lightning elevation to the No. 2 position, and anticipated imminent rise to the top job in the judiciary?” Kim Quek quipped.

“Is this country so poor in legal talent and integrity that we have no choice but to appoint someone so glaringly unsuited for such an important judicial position arising from his multiple conflicts of interests and questionable integrity?” Kim Quek quizzled.

(In an attempt to placate the growing protests in parliament against the parachuting of Zaki, Minister in the PM’s Department Nazri Aziz (left) portrayed Zaki as “a straight fellow” and that the “only reason we roped him in was due to his past performance and his character”! Nazri was at his very naïve best!)

As it turned out, the PM chose to ignore the very pointed issues and pertinent questions that Kim Quek and the public had posed regarding Zaki’s then imminent ascension to the apex court. There were no consultations with the “primary stakeholders” – in spite of Pak Lah’s promise in April.

Pleasantries


The public pooh-poohed Pak Lah’s preference of Zaki as the new CJ. Lim Kit Siang (left) described it as “the most controversial appointment of the head of the judiciary in the nation’s 51-year history.” Din Merican, an Anwar Ibrahim aide, called it a “retrogressive move” in the PM’s reform agenda.

After the swearing-in ceremony of the new CJ, and hard-pressed by the press, a rather resigned Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan (below, right) extended the pleasantry that “Zaki must be given a chance to prove he can bring about the much-needed change to the judiciary system.”

“There had been concerns in relation to Zaki’s political affiliations and business connections (and) these concerns can only be dispelled by him through the conduct of his duties and by a demonstration of independence and impartiality at all times,” Ambiga added amiably.

Alas, in Bolehland many things function on the reverse. What had in fact to be proven by the Government was whether Zaki was "worthy" or qualified in every way, to occupy the CJ’s chair. And such proof had to be provided – PRIOR to the appointment, and not after.

The search for the "right man" for high office begins with a process of discernment to ascertain, as far as possible, whether he fits the criteria of the job – and this is done prior to making a final decision. Further, the CJ’s Office being a public office, the public has the right to know and critique the proposed candidate.

Ambiga’s implied request, therefore, that the office of the CJ is an "opportunity" for Zaki to prove himself does not make any sense at all. It is like "putting the cart before the donkey (horse)." (But then again very little makes sense in Bolehland these days!)

Pretense

The NST had for its headline on Zaki’s maiden speech at the Palace of Justice: "Zaki shows he means business." Perhaps it would be more accurate if it had been: "Zaki says he means business."

According to The Star, Zaki had “vowed to get tough on errant judges,” whom he said formed a small group and of whom he accused of besmirching the image and reputation of the judiciary.

“Such errant judges should consider leaving the judiciary. I will not hesitate to take tough and drastic action against this small group (of judges) if the occasion calls for it. And for those in the practice of toadying (currying favour), I say ‘stop it’,” Zaki added more zing into his warning.

Ambiga, who attended the ceremony, praised Zaki for having delivered a “hard-hitting” speech (Malaysiakini): “I think it was a no-nonsense and tough speech... He is off to a good start with that speech.”

It was more humdrum than hard-hitting. Zaki’s mundane maiden pronouncements were in fact practically the same as that made by one of his predecessors – Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim (left), who had said that “judges should resign if they cannot lead a judge's life.”

Sadly, the tenure of Fairuz was “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It ended as a flop, a farce and a fiasco. The verdict of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Lingam tape scandal reduced his appointment as CJ to a first-class joke. Will Zaki Tun Azmi meet with the same fate?

Will our nation be “cox-zakied” (coxsackie is a hand, foot and mouth disease) by a tough-talking Chief Justice? Will we see real, rapid and radical changes in the judiciary or will we be regularly reassured by the CJ’s reiterated rhetoric accompanied by a rudderless leadership?

Will the PM stop the Umno warlords from pulling the strings as he plays their puppet, preaching judicial reform but practising the very opposite? Will the judiciary – the very "portal of justice" – continue to be a playground of political expediency where the-powers-that-be persecute their foes by a perversion of the rule of law?

Business executives in Asia make no pretence about their worsening perception of Bolehland’s judiciary – as revealed recently by a Hong-Kong based Political and Economic Risks Consultancy. Local lawyers in a Transparency International Malaysia interview shared the same or even greater corroding perception. Genuine change is crucial.

Time is not on Pak Lah’s side. What kind of legacy will he leave behind in terms of the judiciary? Will he be remembered for his pretentious resolve for judicial reform or will he be respected as a courageous and committed PM who translated into reality his talk given in April this year: Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust (in the Judiciary)?