Election Commission chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman says
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:19 PM CDT
Election Commission chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman today dropped a bombshell by revealing that the cabinet had rejected the use of indelible ink in the March 8 general election on the day Parliament was dissolved.
“I have not told the country about this (before) but what happened was that cabinet rejected our proposed law (on indelible ink) on Feb 13 - the day dissolution of Parliament was done,” he revealed at a seminar on elections in International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) today.
Taking a rare departure from his normally reserved persona, Rashid revealed that the EC was all set to impose indelible ink on voters when casting their ballot on March 8 - a move aimed at dispelling fears of cheating in elections.
“We were under pressure by a lot of parties (to use the indelible ink). I won’t say it was just the opposition but even the NGOs are telling us to do something to dispel the fear of cheating in elections.
“We do believe that in order to convince people (that we were independent), we have got to do something and the least we could was to agree to the use of indelible ink.
“We were very serious. We put up a regulation on this and submitted it to the cabinet,” he added.
Last year, the EC had agreed to use the ink in the 12th General Elections to put to rest claims of multiple voting.
However, the plan was cancelled four days before the March 8 polling day.
A princely sum of RM2.9 million for about 48,000 bottles of the ink was bought from India, but Rashid had to call off the move on claims, that were never substantiated, that elements of sabotage had been detected by the police.
Last Tuesday, Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar told Parliament that the EC's decision to scrap the ink was based on 'hearsay evidence'.
Cabinet ordered me to take responsibility
Admitting that he had avoided this subject since the election results were announced, the chairperson appeared relaxed today and related how he was made responsible over the cabinet’s decision.
He disclosed that the cabinet was swayed by the police information that political parties had purchased indelible ink overseas.
“I was told that PAS in the east coast bought ink from Thailand. Then Umno came to know (about this) and Umno also bought the ink.
“This was given to me in black and white by the police and the same report went to the cabinet and they believed that this was happening,” he said.
Aside from security reasons, Rashid also noted that the cabinet said voting is a constitutional right under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution whereby the indelible ink process cannot be forced onto people as it goes against the fundamental right of a person to vote.
“Voting is your fundamental right and even if you reject the use of the ink, you must be given a ballot paper. It is an implied human right. You should not be putting roadblocks to prevent anybody from voting,” he said.
According to Rashid - after being informed about the cabinet’s decision to cancel the use of the ink - he was ordered to be responsible for the controversial scrapping of the indelible ink.
“And I was called and told about it and I was told to take the whole responsibility for agreeing to the ink. I took the whole responsibility."
He quipped that as EC chief he had for many years been taking the "responsibility" for some of the controversial decisions made.
“It’s not easy to be EC chairman and I took the responsibility but that cost me dearly to me and to my house. They threw red paint on my house and my gate,” he lamented.
Abdul Rashid, who is due to retire in December, has been helping to organise elections in Malaysia over the past three decades.
Naming names
On March 6 - two days after the cancellation of the ink - vandals splashed the outside of Rashid’s house in Bukit Pantai, Kuala Lumpur with bright red paint which he described as “politically motivated”.
Naming names for the first time, the chairperson alluded that his suspicion was based on a political rally that was held nearby his home that night.
“(PKR de facto leader) Anwar Ibrahim was giving speeches in Bangsar near my house and his fiery speeches woke up some samseng boys [...] but I didn’t tell (the police), I did not want to cause problems,” he said.
During the press conference, Rashid also disclosed that opposition parties had sent representatives to apologise for remarks made during the elections.
“The opposition had sent representative to apologise immediately after the elections ended. They sent people to say sorry, this is all politics.
“They were a bit personal with me, they felt very sorry because basically I wasn’t their enemy. I accepted their apologies,” he said.
Rashid faced numerous criticisms during the run-up of the general elections from opposition and civil society. He was accused for failing to act independently on behalf the EC and was perceived to be influenced by the executive.
The seminar entitled ‘National Seminar on Election 2008: Democracy at work’ was organised by the Electoral Studies Research Unit in IIUM.
In an immediate response, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that the scrapping of the indelible ink was a cabinet's suggestion to EC, and not a directive.
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:14 PM CDT
It is time to review the current electoral laws that have become the root of all the problems faced by the Election Commission, said its chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman today.
Making his bold statement at an elections seminar in the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) in Gombak, he said a committee should be set up for this function.
“A committee consisting of wise people, ex-judges, people who are well-versed with the law to take a look at the law to strengthen and defend democratic practices in the country.
"(It is) to study back what the EC actually requires in order to put the commission in a position of strength.
“A position where you can really determine the proper conduct of election. When it comes to the possible review of our electoral laws, we need to review all the laws and not just one,” he said.
However, when asked whether he was calling for a royal commission to look into the matter, he said: "Don't quote me on that."
Urgent review needed
Rashid expressed concerns that the EC lacks the necessary power to act in providing the level-playing field that is duly required in any elections.
“If people don’t believe that we are independent, then the laws should be reviewed and of course that is not within the EC to decide but as chairman, I would consider reviewing the electoral laws as timely.
“This review should be urgently considered. There is a need to enhance and strengthen the power of the EC where it can decide what’s right and wrong.
“When the EC can have control over all political parties, control over abuses and excesses, it is only then that we can be considered a proper electoral body that is ideal in a democracy,” he asserted.
According to Rashid, laws include the Election Act, the Election Offences Act, the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations and the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations as well as Article 113 to 120 in the Federal Constitution needs to be reviewed.
"We feel that there must be new laws making it easier for us to introduce or to prepare electoral rolls before every election. A roll that is not subject to question or controversy."
However, he said that the EC cannot be making legislative changes because it is not their function.
“We can only voice our unhappiness and dissatisfaction, that’s all. The government will have to pick it up from there.
"I am surprised there is not much debate on this in Parliament. I thought with all the noise they had earlier on, they should be making that noise in Parliament but it is all quiet,” he elaborated during the press conference.
Suing power lacking
The EC chairperson,who is due to retire in December, also said new laws should provide powers for the EC to institute legal proceedings against parties who have made false accusations concerning them.
"Another power that is lacking is the power for the EC to sue. When people say the wrong things, we should be able to sue.
“A lot of scandalous things have been thrown (said), including (those made by) the media, mainstream or alternative.
"They must be made to pay for the things they said because most of the things they said were not right, not correct,” said Abdul Rashid, who has been involved in organising elections in Malaysia in the past three decades.
In his 40-minute speech, Rashid also dropped a bombshell by revealing that the cabinet was behind the decision to scrap the use of indelible ink during the March general election.
However, he was made to shoulder all responsibilities as the result of that including numerous accusations from political parties and NGOs as well as a vandalism attack on his house.
The seminar entitled ‘National Seminar on Election 2008: Democracy at work’ was organised by the Electoral Studies Research Unit in IIUM.
DR M CHALLENGES GOVT TO CHARGE HIM - AFP
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:13 PM CDT
Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad today challenged the government to charge him for his alleged involvement in a judge-fixing scandal during his rule.
The government yesterday released a report that found evidence of an "insidious" conspiracy to influence the appointment of judges and had listed Mahathir, along with other top figures, as being involved.
Following the release of the report, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's cabinet agreed for the Attorney-General's Chambers to immediately investigate the allegations against those identified in the report, including Mahathir.
"I welcome it," the 82-year-old influential leader said at a meeting in Johor.
"I want them to charge me in court. Only then will I have the opportunity to expose more conflicts faced by the judges, including those who have implicated me," he told reporters.
The report was prepared by a royal commission that investigated a video clip allegedly showing top lawyer VK Lingam brokering judge appointments.
Insidiuos movement
"We are of the view that there was, conceivably, an insidious movement by (Lingam) with the covert assistance of his close friends," it said, citing business tycoon Vincent Tan - Mahathir's close associate - and secretary-general of the ruling Umno, Tengku Adnan.
"In the process, Tun Mahathir Mohamad was also entangled," the report said, referring to the man who ruled Malaysia with an iron fist for 22 years.
The report said there was "sufficient cause" to invoke laws including those on sedition and corruption against "some of the principal individuals involved." But it did not specify who should face prosecution.
During the commission inquiry, Mahathir testified that he was not influenced by his associates when he selected judges.
His arch foe and former deputy premier, Anwar Ibrahim, unleashed a furore last year by releasing the clip, which apparently showed Lingam telling a person identified as former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz that that he would put him forward for a top job.
- AFP
SNAP POLLS CAN BE CALLED AT ANYTIME
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:12 PM CDT
Can a federal or state government be dissolved any time?
Yes, according to Election Commission (EC) deputy chairperson Wan Ahmad Omar.
A federal or state government can be dissolved at any time, even before three months, if the ruling party sees a need for a fresh mandate, Wan Ahmad was quoted by the Star as saying today.
He added that there was also no provision in the Federal Constitution to prevent the current government from dissolving Parliament or state assemblies.
In this event, he said a snap election could be called.
Wan Ahmad said it was the prerogative of the prime minister to acquire royal consent from the king to dissolve Parliament, adding that the same applied to state assemblies whereby consent is needed from the respective sultan or governor.
“Although polling day of the 12th General Election was on March 8, the current federal government's mandate only commenced when Parliament convened three weeks ago,” he said.
Wan Ahmad was asked to comment on the uncertain political scenario following speculations of possible party-hopping by Barisan Nasional members to Pakatan Rakyat.
Pakatan leaders, especially Anwar Ibrahim, had publicly stated on several occasions that the opposition coalition has the numbers to take over the federal government soon.
Several BN leaders, including Deputy Premier Najib Tun Razak, had responded by saying that the speculations should be taken seriously while they were also others who scoffed at it.
However, in the current Parliament sitting, some Barisan MPs from Sabah also spoke of possible crossovers with Sabah Progressive Party president Yong Teck Lee even issuing an ultimatum to the federal government to take action on the grouses brought up by Sabah leaders.
Yong gave the August deadline for action to be taken, failing which SAPP would make a decision whether to stay in the BN or leave.
Extremely real problems
The latest to join in the chorus is Upko president Bernard Dompok who said the frustrations of Sabahans and their representatives in getting the federal government to solve their long list of problems are “extremely real” and talk about MPs crossing over to join the opposition is symptomatic of this frustration.
The longstanding issues affecting Sabahans could no longer be “swept under the carpet” and MPs were under a lot of pressure to resolve the people’s problems, he told the Star.
Any decision for Upko to leave the Barisan fold will be made by the party and not by him, Dompok stressed to the press yesterday.
He said that while Upko’s three other MPs had not raised the subject of leaving the party “at the moment,” he admitted: “Their frustrations are real. I think no one can deny it”.
When asked if any of the Upko MPs, including himself, had been approached by opposition leaders, Dompok replied: “Not yet as far as I know".
“But if these people (from Pakatan Rakyat) want to talk to me in Parliament, there is no reason why I should not talk to them,” the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department said, adding however that “if you ask me, I don’t think the opposition will make the numbers”.
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:08 PM CDT
A veteran Sabah politician has cautioned that Kuala Lumpur will be making a grave mistake to brand Sabah BN leaders ‘frogs’ just because they are making demands in the interests of the state.
John Ghani, the former independent assemblyperson for Kuala Penyu said recent developments where MPs and political leaders from Sabah had been more open and vociferous in voicing out issues that affect the state was not surprising based on the present political scenario.
"Don't make a mistake by concluding that Sabah leaders are those who simply like to switch parties. What they are saying is the reality in the State, which they have been unable to voice out for quite a long time,” he was quoted in the Daily Express of Sabah as saying today.
"It is quite disappointing to hear leaders in Kuala Lumpur saying Sabahans have no stand. This is not the case," said Ghani, who was one of those instrumental in helping Umno spread its wings to Sabah in 1994.
During the early Umno days in Sabah, Ghani had held the post of Sabah Umno deputy liaison chairperson.
His experience in the 2004 general election to win the Kuala Penyu state seat as an independent candidate after resigning from Umno to contest against the BN showed the people would never hesitate to make the change if the government continued to ignore them.
"Their (Sabah leaders) actions should be praised because this is the only way they can get the federal government to take Sabah seriously. The issues were also raised many times in the state assembly," he said.
Ghani said accusing Sabah leaders as frogs was tantamount to accusing the people of Sabah as having no principles.Sabah as a model
In fact, Ghani said Kuala Lumpur should make Sabah as a model, which despite being the "poorest" state in the country remained as the BN stronghold.
"In peninsula they lost five states among them Selangor and Penang, which are the most developed in the country," he said.
Among the issues raised, he said, was for the prime minister to hold a cabinet re-shuffle to give Sabah better federal ministerial representation.
He believed Abdullah Ahmad Badawi overlooked the fact that during the Usno era in the 1970s a Sabah leader, Ghani Gilong, was appointed minister of public works and transport, an important portfolio for the country.
"Between then and now, surely we have more educated and capable leaders from Sabah able to hold important portfolios but not given the opportunity," he said.
Another issue, Ghani said was the illegal immigrants that continue to be unabated despite many calls by the leaders from the state for the federal government to find a concrete solution.
He added that if no solution is in sight to address the problem now, the future generation would be facing a greater challenge than what the people of Sabah is facing today.
ACT AGAINST DR M & FIVE OTHERS - Malaysiakini
Posted: 17 May 2008 02:09 AM CDT
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the VK Lingam video clip has recommended that former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad be investigated under various laws for his role in the appointment of judges.
Other luminaries to face investigation are former chief justices Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Eusoff Chin, senior lawyer VK Lingam, former minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and business tycoon Vincent Tan.
This was revealed by de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim in Putrajaya today after announcing the cabinet has decided that appropriate action would be taken against the said individuals.
In its 191-page report, the commission recommended that they be investigated under a slew of laws - Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act and the Legal Profession Act.
Zaid said the cabinet has agreed for the Attorney General's Chambers to institute immediate investigations against the six.
'AG will have to investigate'
"The report is advisory in nature so (the AG) will have to investigate them later," he said.
Photocopies of several pages of the report were also distributed to the media which stated the commission’s final analysis after considering all evidence:
"We are of the view that there was conceivably an insidious movement by VK Lingam with covert assistance of his close friends Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Mansor to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges, in particular the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as President of the Court of Appeal, and subsequently as the Chief Justice."
The much-anticipated royal commission report was finally revealed by the minister after the media ran several speculative pieces on its findings.
Commission chairperson Haidar Mohd Noorsubmitted the report to the King last Friday.
Earlier, Zaid said the government has also decided to release the commission's report to the public.
The four-volume report will be sold at RM542.10 and be available next week from the government printers.
While volume one - which is the report itself - has only 191 pages, volume two containing the notes of evidence is 1,187 pages long, while volume three contains all the statutory declarations submitted to the commission (513 pages) and the final volume contains the exhibits (998 pages).
'Gov't committed and serious'
In the brief press conference, Zaid also said: "The government is committed and serious about restoring the rule of law and bringing confidence back into the judiciary in making sure that the selection of judges and high officers are done in a transparent way so we can minimise the shortcomings and weaknesses in the past.
He added that the government is now in the process of preparing necessary laws for the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
"The government also proposes to include the recognition of ‘judicial power’ as proposed by the commission," he said.
However, the royal commission is against the setting up of a Judicial Complaints Tribunal to look into complaints related to misbehaviour by judges and judicial officers.
Zaid later urged the media and public to allow the investigation process to proceed uninterrupted without undue pressure or prejudice.
In January, former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar led a five-member commission to investigate the controversial video clip allegedly showing Lingam brokering judicial appointments with former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz over the telephone.
After conducting the inquiry for 17 days with 21 witnesses called, the commission took almost three months to come up with the voluminous report.
In a related development, the Prime Minister’s Department today filed a police report against several newspapers for publishing details of the commission’s report before it was made public.
The Star, New Straits Times, Berita Harian and Sin Chew Daily had earlier published reports revealing the commission’s findings and recommendations.
Bar Council welcomes cabinet's decision
In an immediate reaction, the Bar Council welcomed the cabinet's decision to make public the commission's report.
"The public is entitled to know the royal commission's findings in full as well as the basis for them," said council's chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan.
She stressed that the attorney-general's investigations "must be carried out fairly, thoroughly and quickly, and in such a manner as to assure the public that there will be no cover-up".
"This is crucial particularly in light of the evidence at the inquiry, which showed that similar investigations had been previously closed by the authorities without furhter action."
ROYAL COMMISSION'S KEY FINDINGS
Posted: 17 May 2008 02:00 AM CDT
The following are some of the findings of the 191-page report of the Lingam Tape Royal Commission, part of it was made available to the media today. The full report will be on sale next week.
Is the video clip authentic?
In the final analysis, when all is said and done by the experts, both local and foreign, stripped off all the technical jargon that they used in their findings, when examined in the context of the
direct or primary evidence of the maker of the video clip, coupled with that of the eyewitnesses, a simple question confronting the commission can be posed in layman terms: Is the video clip
genuine, real, reliable or trustworthy and therefore authentic?
We have no hesitation in answering in the affirmative.
Who is the person on the other end of the phone?
In our view, when the testimonies of senior lawyer VK Lingam and former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, which consist essentially of bare denials, are examined against the direct evidence elicited from the phone conversation in the video clip as well as the evidence of two eyewitnesses and the circumstantial evidence alluded to above, an irresistible inference can reasonably be drawn, namely, that the person to whom Lingam was speaking on the other end of the phone was Ahmad Fairuz.
In the circumstances, having heard the submissions before us and having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced in the enquiry, we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the identity of the other person concerned is none other than Ahmad Fairuz.
Was Lingam intoxicated during the phone conversation?
The evidence shows that he was not. This can be discernible from the following factors:
First, we have had the opportunity of viewing and hearing the video clip played before us no less than five times during the course of the enquiry. We are unable to detect both from his mannerisms and speech that the speaker (identified as Lingam) was intoxicated. He was able to recite accurately various facts and events in great detail. He seemed perfectly rational in every way.
Second, the witnesses, Loh Mui Fah and Loh Gwo-Burne who were present there at the material time testified that Lingam was not intoxicated. Indeed, they stated that they had gone to Lingam's house to have dinner with him and also to discuss some legal matters. It is therefore implausible that Lingam would have allowed himself to get intoxicated.
Third, Lingam's evidence that he could be intoxicated was not something that he recollected as a fact but which he arrived at by way of supposition and surmise based upon sight of a number
of bottles of alcohol shown in the two photographs taken at the time. In any case, he admitted that he would only drink during social occasions and was not a heavy drinker.
Was Lingam ‘bullshitting or bragging’?
Lingam had also maintained that he could be, as he said, "bullshitting or bragging". Again, the evidence militates against this stand. In our view, this is implausible, given the details reflected in the conversation in the video clip; the flow of the dialogue and the fact that most of the statements contained therein have been established to be true in material particulars.
Is there a conspiracy?
In the final analysis, having regard to the totality of the evidence and for the reasons stated, we are of the view that there was, conceivably, an insidious movement by Lingam with the covert
assistance of his close friends, Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges, in particular, the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz
as the chief judge of Malaya and subsequently as Court of Appeal president.
In the process, Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also entangled. That possibility was ominous when examined against the factual circumstances surrounding the rejection of Malek Ahmad as chief judge of Malaya. Their ultimate aim or purpose could not be ascertained with exactitude, given the limitation under the (commission’s) terms of reference. It could be related to the fixing of cases, as submitted by counsel for the Bar and others. Certainly, it is reasonable to suggest that it could not be anything but self-serving.
Invoke laws against key individuals
It is sufficient for us to state here that the collective and cumulative actions of the main characters concerned, had the effect of seriously undermining and eroding the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole.
For the moment, we would state that there is sufficient cause to invoke the Sedition Act 1948, the Prevention of Corruption 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code against some of the principal individuals involved. We do not discount the possibility of other laws being contravened. In any case, the findings have, at the very least, provided the catalyst for further investigations so that, hopefully, there would be complete transparency and full accountability.
This is absolutely essential if we are to wipe out, once and for all, the stain of that remark once made by justice NH Chan, in reference to the judiciary, that "something is rotten in the state
of Denmark".
Election Commission chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman says
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:19 PM CDT
“I have not told the country about this (before) but what happened was that cabinet rejected our proposed law (on indelible ink) on Feb 13 - the day dissolution of Parliament was done,” he revealed at a seminar on elections in International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) today.
Taking a rare departure from his normally reserved persona, Rashid revealed that the EC was all set to impose indelible ink on voters when casting their ballot on March 8 - a move aimed at dispelling fears of cheating in elections.
“We do believe that in order to convince people (that we were independent), we have got to do something and the least we could was to agree to the use of indelible ink.
“We were very serious. We put up a regulation on this and submitted it to the cabinet,” he added.
Last year, the EC had agreed to use the ink in the 12th General Elections to put to rest claims of multiple voting.
However, the plan was cancelled four days before the March 8 polling day.
A princely sum of RM2.9 million for about 48,000 bottles of the ink was bought from India, but Rashid had to call off the move on claims, that were never substantiated, that elements of sabotage had been detected by the police.
Last Tuesday, Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar told Parliament that the EC's decision to scrap the ink was based on 'hearsay evidence'.
Cabinet ordered me to take responsibility
Admitting that he had avoided this subject since the election results were announced, the chairperson appeared relaxed today and related how he was made responsible over the cabinet’s decision.
“I was told that PAS in the east coast bought ink from Thailand. Then Umno came to know (about this) and Umno also bought the ink.
“This was given to me in black and white by the police and the same report went to the cabinet and they believed that this was happening,” he said.
Aside from security reasons, Rashid also noted that the cabinet said voting is a constitutional right under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution whereby the indelible ink process cannot be forced onto people as it goes against the fundamental right of a person to vote.
“Voting is your fundamental right and even if you reject the use of the ink, you must be given a ballot paper. It is an implied human right. You should not be putting roadblocks to prevent anybody from voting,” he said.
According to Rashid - after being informed about the cabinet’s decision to cancel the use of the ink - he was ordered to be responsible for the controversial scrapping of the indelible ink.
“And I was called and told about it and I was told to take the whole responsibility for agreeing to the ink. I took the whole responsibility."
He quipped that as EC chief he had for many years been taking the "responsibility" for some of the controversial decisions made.
“It’s not easy to be EC chairman and I took the responsibility but that cost me dearly to me and to my house. They threw red paint on my house and my gate,” he lamented.
Abdul Rashid, who is due to retire in December, has been helping to organise elections in Malaysia over the past three decades.
Naming names
On March 6 - two days after the cancellation of the ink - vandals splashed the outside of Rashid’s house in Bukit Pantai, Kuala Lumpur with bright red paint which he described as “politically motivated”.
“(PKR de facto leader) Anwar Ibrahim was giving speeches in Bangsar near my house and his fiery speeches woke up some samseng boys [...] but I didn’t tell (the police), I did not want to cause problems,” he said.
During the press conference, Rashid also disclosed that opposition parties had sent representatives to apologise for remarks made during the elections.
“The opposition had sent representative to apologise immediately after the elections ended. They sent people to say sorry, this is all politics.
“They were a bit personal with me, they felt very sorry because basically I wasn’t their enemy. I accepted their apologies,” he said.
Rashid faced numerous criticisms during the run-up of the general elections from opposition and civil society. He was accused for failing to act independently on behalf the EC and was perceived to be influenced by the executive.
The seminar entitled ‘National Seminar on Election 2008: Democracy at work’ was organised by the Electoral Studies Research Unit in IIUM.
In an immediate response, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that the scrapping of the indelible ink was a cabinet's suggestion to EC, and not a directive.
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:14 PM CDT
It is time to review the current electoral laws that have become the root of all the problems faced by the Election Commission, said its chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman today.
Making his bold statement at an elections seminar in the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) in Gombak, he said a committee should be set up for this function.
"(It is) to study back what the EC actually requires in order to put the commission in a position of strength.
“A position where you can really determine the proper conduct of election. When it comes to the possible review of our electoral laws, we need to review all the laws and not just one,” he said.
However, when asked whether he was calling for a royal commission to look into the matter, he said: "Don't quote me on that."
Urgent review needed
Rashid expressed concerns that the EC lacks the necessary power to act in providing the level-playing field that is duly required in any elections.
“If people don’t believe that we are independent, then the laws should be reviewed and of course that is not within the EC to decide but as chairman, I would consider reviewing the electoral laws as timely.
“This review should be urgently considered. There is a need to enhance and strengthen the power of the EC where it can decide what’s right and wrong.
“When the EC can have control over all political parties, control over abuses and excesses, it is only then that we can be considered a proper electoral body that is ideal in a democracy,” he asserted.
According to Rashid, laws include the Election Act, the Election Offences Act, the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations and the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations as well as Article 113 to 120 in the Federal Constitution needs to be reviewed.
However, he said that the EC cannot be making legislative changes because it is not their function.
“We can only voice our unhappiness and dissatisfaction, that’s all. The government will have to pick it up from there.
"I am surprised there is not much debate on this in Parliament. I thought with all the noise they had earlier on, they should be making that noise in Parliament but it is all quiet,” he elaborated during the press conference.
Suing power lacking
The EC chairperson,who is due to retire in December, also said new laws should provide powers for the EC to institute legal proceedings against parties who have made false accusations concerning them.
"Another power that is lacking is the power for the EC to sue. When people say the wrong things, we should be able to sue.
“A lot of scandalous things have been thrown (said), including (those made by) the media, mainstream or alternative.
"They must be made to pay for the things they said because most of the things they said were not right, not correct,” said Abdul Rashid, who has been involved in organising elections in Malaysia in the past three decades.
In his 40-minute speech, Rashid also dropped a bombshell by revealing that the cabinet was behind the decision to scrap the use of indelible ink during the March general election.
However, he was made to shoulder all responsibilities as the result of that including numerous accusations from political parties and NGOs as well as a vandalism attack on his house.
The seminar entitled ‘National Seminar on Election 2008: Democracy at work’ was organised by the Electoral Studies Research Unit in IIUM.
DR M CHALLENGES GOVT TO CHARGE HIM - AFP
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:13 PM CDT
Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad today challenged the government to charge him for his alleged involvement in a judge-fixing scandal during his rule.
The government yesterday released a report that found evidence of an "insidious" conspiracy to influence the appointment of judges and had listed Mahathir, along with other top figures, as being involved.
Following the release of the report, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's cabinet agreed for the Attorney-General's Chambers to immediately investigate the allegations against those identified in the report, including Mahathir.
"I want them to charge me in court. Only then will I have the opportunity to expose more conflicts faced by the judges, including those who have implicated me," he told reporters.
The report was prepared by a royal commission that investigated a video clip allegedly showing top lawyer VK Lingam brokering judge appointments.
Insidiuos movement
"We are of the view that there was, conceivably, an insidious movement by (Lingam) with the covert assistance of his close friends," it said, citing business tycoon Vincent Tan - Mahathir's close associate - and secretary-general of the ruling Umno, Tengku Adnan.
"In the process, Tun Mahathir Mohamad was also entangled," the report said, referring to the man who ruled Malaysia with an iron fist for 22 years.
The report said there was "sufficient cause" to invoke laws including those on sedition and corruption against "some of the principal individuals involved." But it did not specify who should face prosecution.
During the commission inquiry, Mahathir testified that he was not influenced by his associates when he selected judges.
His arch foe and former deputy premier, Anwar Ibrahim, unleashed a furore last year by releasing the clip, which apparently showed Lingam telling a person identified as former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz that that he would put him forward for a top job.
- AFP
SNAP POLLS CAN BE CALLED AT ANYTIME
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:12 PM CDT
Can a federal or state government be dissolved any time?
A federal or state government can be dissolved at any time, even before three months, if the ruling party sees a need for a fresh mandate, Wan Ahmad was quoted by the Star as saying today.
In this event, he said a snap election could be called.
Wan Ahmad said it was the prerogative of the prime minister to acquire royal consent from the king to dissolve Parliament, adding that the same applied to state assemblies whereby consent is needed from the respective sultan or governor.
“Although polling day of the 12th General Election was on March 8, the current federal government's mandate only commenced when Parliament convened three weeks ago,” he said.
Wan Ahmad was asked to comment on the uncertain political scenario following speculations of possible party-hopping by Barisan Nasional members to Pakatan Rakyat.
Pakatan leaders, especially Anwar Ibrahim, had publicly stated on several occasions that the opposition coalition has the numbers to take over the federal government soon.
Several BN leaders, including Deputy Premier Najib Tun Razak, had responded by saying that the speculations should be taken seriously while they were also others who scoffed at it.
However, in the current Parliament sitting, some Barisan MPs from Sabah also spoke of possible crossovers with Sabah Progressive Party president Yong Teck Lee even issuing an ultimatum to the federal government to take action on the grouses brought up by Sabah leaders.
Yong gave the August deadline for action to be taken, failing which SAPP would make a decision whether to stay in the BN or leave.
Extremely real problems
The latest to join in the chorus is Upko president Bernard Dompok who said the frustrations of Sabahans and their representatives in getting the federal government to solve their long list of problems are “extremely real” and talk about MPs crossing over to join the opposition is symptomatic of this frustration.
Any decision for Upko to leave the Barisan fold will be made by the party and not by him, Dompok stressed to the press yesterday.
He said that while Upko’s three other MPs had not raised the subject of leaving the party “at the moment,” he admitted: “Their frustrations are real. I think no one can deny it”.
When asked if any of the Upko MPs, including himself, had been approached by opposition leaders, Dompok replied: “Not yet as far as I know".
“But if these people (from Pakatan Rakyat) want to talk to me in Parliament, there is no reason why I should not talk to them,” the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department said, adding however that “if you ask me, I don’t think the opposition will make the numbers”.
Posted: 17 May 2008 01:08 PM CDT
A veteran Sabah politician has cautioned that Kuala Lumpur will be making a grave mistake to brand Sabah BN leaders ‘frogs’ just because they are making demands in the interests of the state.
John Ghani, the former independent assemblyperson for Kuala Penyu said recent developments where MPs and political leaders from Sabah had been more open and vociferous in voicing out issues that affect the state was not surprising based on the present political scenario.
"Don't make a mistake by concluding that Sabah leaders are those who simply like to switch parties. What they are saying is the reality in the State, which they have been unable to voice out for quite a long time,” he was quoted in the Daily Express of Sabah as saying today.
"It is quite disappointing to hear leaders in Kuala Lumpur saying Sabahans have no stand. This is not the case," said Ghani, who was one of those instrumental in helping Umno spread its wings to Sabah in 1994.
During the early Umno days in Sabah, Ghani had held the post of Sabah Umno deputy liaison chairperson.
His experience in the 2004 general election to win the Kuala Penyu state seat as an independent candidate after resigning from Umno to contest against the BN showed the people would never hesitate to make the change if the government continued to ignore them.
"Their (Sabah leaders) actions should be praised because this is the only way they can get the federal government to take Sabah seriously. The issues were also raised many times in the state assembly," he said.
Ghani said accusing Sabah leaders as frogs was tantamount to accusing the people of Sabah as having no principles.
Sabah as a model
In fact, Ghani said Kuala Lumpur should make Sabah as a model, which despite being the "poorest" state in the country remained as the BN stronghold.
"In peninsula they lost five states among them Selangor and Penang, which are the most developed in the country," he said.
Among the issues raised, he said, was for the prime minister to hold a cabinet re-shuffle to give Sabah better federal ministerial representation.
He believed Abdullah Ahmad Badawi overlooked the fact that during the Usno era in the 1970s a Sabah leader, Ghani Gilong, was appointed minister of public works and transport, an important portfolio for the country.
"Between then and now, surely we have more educated and capable leaders from Sabah able to hold important portfolios but not given the opportunity," he said.
Another issue, Ghani said was the illegal immigrants that continue to be unabated despite many calls by the leaders from the state for the federal government to find a concrete solution.
He added that if no solution is in sight to address the problem now, the future generation would be facing a greater challenge than what the people of Sabah is facing today.
ACT AGAINST DR M & FIVE OTHERS - Malaysiakini
Posted: 17 May 2008 02:09 AM CDT
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the VK Lingam video clip has recommended that former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad be investigated under various laws for his role in the appointment of judges.
Other luminaries to face investigation are former chief justices Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Eusoff Chin, senior lawyer VK Lingam, former minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and business tycoon Vincent Tan.
In its 191-page report, the commission recommended that they be investigated under a slew of laws - Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act and the Legal Profession Act.
Zaid said the cabinet has agreed for the Attorney General's Chambers to institute immediate investigations against the six.
'AG will have to investigate'
Photocopies of several pages of the report were also distributed to the media which stated the commission’s final analysis after considering all evidence:
"We are of the view that there was conceivably an insidious movement by VK Lingam with covert assistance of his close friends Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Mansor to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges, in particular the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as President of the Court of Appeal, and subsequently as the Chief Justice."
The much-anticipated royal commission report was finally revealed by the minister after the media ran several speculative pieces on its findings.
Commission chairperson Haidar Mohd Noorsubmitted the report to the King last Friday.
Earlier, Zaid said the government has also decided to release the commission's report to the public.
The four-volume report will be sold at RM542.10 and be available next week from the government printers.
While volume one - which is the report itself - has only 191 pages, volume two containing the notes of evidence is 1,187 pages long, while volume three contains all the statutory declarations submitted to the commission (513 pages) and the final volume contains the exhibits (998 pages).
'Gov't committed and serious'
In the brief press conference, Zaid also said: "The government is committed and serious about restoring the rule of law and bringing confidence back into the judiciary in making sure that the selection of judges and high officers are done in a transparent way so we can minimise the shortcomings and weaknesses in the past.
He added that the government is now in the process of preparing necessary laws for the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
However, the royal commission is against the setting up of a Judicial Complaints Tribunal to look into complaints related to misbehaviour by judges and judicial officers.
Zaid later urged the media and public to allow the investigation process to proceed uninterrupted without undue pressure or prejudice.
In January, former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar led a five-member commission to investigate the controversial video clip allegedly showing Lingam brokering judicial appointments with former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz over the telephone.
After conducting the inquiry for 17 days with 21 witnesses called, the commission took almost three months to come up with the voluminous report.
In a related development, the Prime Minister’s Department today filed a police report against several newspapers for publishing details of the commission’s report before it was made public.
The Star, New Straits Times, Berita Harian and Sin Chew Daily had earlier published reports revealing the commission’s findings and recommendations.
Bar Council welcomes cabinet's decision
In an immediate reaction, the Bar Council welcomed the cabinet's decision to make public the commission's report.
She stressed that the attorney-general's investigations "must be carried out fairly, thoroughly and quickly, and in such a manner as to assure the public that there will be no cover-up".
"This is crucial particularly in light of the evidence at the inquiry, which showed that similar investigations had been previously closed by the authorities without furhter action."
ROYAL COMMISSION'S KEY FINDINGS
Posted: 17 May 2008 02:00 AM CDT
Is the video clip authentic?
In the final analysis, when all is said and done by the experts, both local and foreign, stripped off all the technical jargon that they used in their findings, when examined in the context of the
direct or primary evidence of the maker of the video clip, coupled with that of the eyewitnesses, a simple question confronting the commission can be posed in layman terms: Is the video clip
genuine, real, reliable or trustworthy and therefore authentic?
We have no hesitation in answering in the affirmative.
Who is the person on the other end of the phone?
In our view, when the testimonies of senior lawyer VK Lingam and former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, which consist essentially of bare denials, are examined against the direct evidence elicited from the phone conversation in the video clip as well as the evidence of two eyewitnesses and the circumstantial evidence alluded to above, an irresistible inference can reasonably be drawn, namely, that the person to whom Lingam was speaking on the other end of the phone was Ahmad Fairuz.
In the circumstances, having heard the submissions before us and having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced in the enquiry, we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the identity of the other person concerned is none other than Ahmad Fairuz.
Was Lingam intoxicated during the phone conversation?
The evidence shows that he was not. This can be discernible from the following factors:
First, we have had the opportunity of viewing and hearing the video clip played before us no less than five times during the course of the enquiry. We are unable to detect both from his mannerisms and speech that the speaker (identified as Lingam) was intoxicated. He was able to recite accurately various facts and events in great detail. He seemed perfectly rational in every way.
Second, the witnesses, Loh Mui Fah and Loh Gwo-Burne who were present there at the material time testified that Lingam was not intoxicated. Indeed, they stated that they had gone to Lingam's house to have dinner with him and also to discuss some legal matters. It is therefore implausible that Lingam would have allowed himself to get intoxicated.
Third, Lingam's evidence that he could be intoxicated was not something that he recollected as a fact but which he arrived at by way of supposition and surmise based upon sight of a number
of bottles of alcohol shown in the two photographs taken at the time. In any case, he admitted that he would only drink during social occasions and was not a heavy drinker.
Was Lingam ‘bullshitting or bragging’?
Lingam had also maintained that he could be, as he said, "bullshitting or bragging". Again, the evidence militates against this stand. In our view, this is implausible, given the details reflected in the conversation in the video clip; the flow of the dialogue and the fact that most of the statements contained therein have been established to be true in material particulars.
Is there a conspiracy?
In the final analysis, having regard to the totality of the evidence and for the reasons stated, we are of the view that there was, conceivably, an insidious movement by Lingam with the covert
assistance of his close friends, Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges, in particular, the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz
as the chief judge of Malaya and subsequently as Court of Appeal president.
In the process, Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also entangled. That possibility was ominous when examined against the factual circumstances surrounding the rejection of Malek Ahmad as chief judge of Malaya. Their ultimate aim or purpose could not be ascertained with exactitude, given the limitation under the (commission’s) terms of reference. It could be related to the fixing of cases, as submitted by counsel for the Bar and others. Certainly, it is reasonable to suggest that it could not be anything but self-serving.
Invoke laws against key individuals
It is sufficient for us to state here that the collective and cumulative actions of the main characters concerned, had the effect of seriously undermining and eroding the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole.
For the moment, we would state that there is sufficient cause to invoke the Sedition Act 1948, the Prevention of Corruption 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code against some of the principal individuals involved. We do not discount the possibility of other laws being contravened. In any case, the findings have, at the very least, provided the catalyst for further investigations so that, hopefully, there would be complete transparency and full accountability.
This is absolutely essential if we are to wipe out, once and for all, the stain of that remark once made by justice NH Chan, in reference to the judiciary, that "something is rotten in the state
of Denmark".
No comments:
Post a Comment