 |
| LETTERS Nov 15, 2000 Look here, Dr Rais Dr Rais Yatim, the Minister in the Prime Minister's department, while criticising the imperfections of the American democratic system, would do well to look no further than his own home. At least the current political and legal tussle in the US shows that its democracy is alive and kicking. By contrast, Malaysia's democracy is not only supine, but also comatose to the point of death. It is, first of all, useless to talk about free and fair elections in a country where all major print and broadcasting media have turned themselves into year-round propaganda machines for the ruling party. If democracy is about making informed choices, what chances do the Malaysian populace have of being informed of the dark heart of Barisan Nasional? The mainstream media gives so little voice to the Opposition that even their paid advertisements are routinely refused. By the creative gerrymander of electoral boundaries in Malaysia, BN was able to secure 77 percent of the parliamentary seats in the country while securing only 56 percent of the total vote in the last general elections. This is no surprise, given that seats that traditionally go to the Opposition can be several times larger than those that are BN strongholds. Thus, we have Lubok Antu in Sarawak making do with a mere 16,555 souls while Ampang Jaya is bloated with a crowd of 98,954 voters. Neither are free and fair elections possible when the Election Commission itself is heavily one-sided. During the last elections, the commission effectively disenfranchised over 700,000 potential voters by claiming that it required an unbelievable nine months to register them. The commission was also stone-deaf to the numerous claims of irregularities in the electoral rolls, including hundreds of thousands of phantom voters, dead voters and incorrectly registered voters. While it is accepted that the party in government enjoys certain advantages come election time, in no democratic country is this exploited to so obscene a level as in Malaysia. Hence, public money is poured into BN's election campaign as though they are party funds, while huge amounts of development funds are promised in exchange for votes. Further, the use of the national Budget as a vote-gathering mechanism during the last general elections was particularly nauseating. While such undemocratic practices are not limited to Malaysia, in one aspect at least, the country may be said to have made a most startling contribution to the annals of corrupt electoral practices. This was the introduction of the waxed ballot paper in the 1999 general elections whereby the space on which voters would have placed a tick for the Opposition was waxed, so that it was difficult to make a mark. To add further farce, voters complained of being given blunt pencils. Unfortunately, such irregularities cannot be redressed when the country's judiciary has already been so polluted to the extent that it can be absolutely relied upon to hand down judgments pleasing to the incumbency. Hence, the Opposition does not waste time and money pursuing an impossible justice. While observers may profess shock that the tortured American presidential elections should end up in the courtroom, if they want a less antagonistic system, they only have to look to Malaysia. Tsu Nam |
| Friday May 4 Rais Yatim, expert somersaulter Fan Yew Teng 11:42am, Fri: A newspaper of April 15 carried a statement of Dr Rais Yatim, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, that the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) should let the police carry out their duty before airing its views. According to The Sun, Rais said the police, in relation to the recent detention of reformasi activists, were allowed a certain latitude under Section 73(1) of the Internal Security Act (ISA). “The seven arrests concern security and public order,” Rais said when asked to comment on Suhakam’s call for the detainees to be released immediately or charged in court. Rais had added the arrests were allowed under Article 151 of the Constitution and were in accordance with the law concerning internal security. Most shocking At best Rais’s statement is most shocking, and at its worst, it is tragic. Shocking because Rais, although a minister in the prime minister’s department, albeit a relatively junior post, but nonetheless a senior politician and lawyer - with a doctorate in law no less - seems to be ignorant of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999. This piece of the legislation (Act 597) was passed in parliament, and received the Royal Assent on Aug 27, 1999. It was published in the Gazette on Sept 9, 1999. Are we to understand that Rais did not know about the existence of such a law? Or that, if he did, was he ignorant of section 4 of the Act, in regard to the ‘Function and powers of the Commission’? Section 4(2) of the Act stipulates that: “ For the purpose of discharging its functions, the commission may exercise any or all of its powers. Under sub-section 4(2), the Commission has the power, indeed the duty, to advise the Government and/or the relevant authorities of complaints against such authorities and recommend to the Government or such authorities appropriate measures to be taken ...” Sub-section (e) of the same Section 4 (2) states very clearly that the commission has the power ‘to issue public statements on human rights as and when necessary ...” So, in what way has Suhakam acted inappropriately? Where under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 does it say that Suhakam cannot or should not air its views while the police are carrying out their duty or investigations? Fragile conscience The police may have a certain latitude under Section 73(1) of the ISA, but that does not make the ISA in general and its Section 73(1) in particular, any more moral or just. Under which law in Malaysia is Suhakam, or for that matter, any Malaysian, prohibited from commenting or criticising arrests purportedly related to security and public order? Is the conscience behind such arbitrary arrests so weak and fragile that it cannot and must not stand the glare of publicity and scrutiny? Rais is, of course, entitled to his opinion that those ISA arrests were legitimate; after all, if he wants continue as a minister, he has hardly any choice but to toe the government’s line. But, surely, that doesn’t mean that Suhakam has to think exactly like Rais and the government. After all, there are already enough robots in our country. Thus, the question of Suhakam acting in a prejudicial or partial manner does not arise at all. Again, Rais is fully entitled to his opinion or conclusion that the ISA arrests were not human rights abuses. But then again, that doesn’t mean that others, including Suhakam, must follow his highly political and jaundiced view. Suhakam has shown that it understands the process and the law. It is Rais, most disappointingly, who has failed to understand the elementary provisions of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999. Rais should realise that no one is saying that article 151 of the Constitution does not allow those ISA arrests. Of course it does. But that does not necessarily make Article151 morally justified. Executive tyranny Laws and constitutional provisions which are unjust are morally unsustainable. Rais’ statement is tragic in at least one sense. In 1995 he published his well-researched book Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia. He, quite rightly, dedicated the book ‘to all who have suffered from the tyranny of executive abuses’. In the conclusion to a lengthy chapter on ‘Detention Without Trial Under The ISA” (Chapter 5, pages 187-304), Rais states: “The executive has been fully equipped and free to allege, prosecute and incarcerate at will persons ministerially deemed to be ‘prejudicial to public order or the security of the Federation’, a constitutional catch-phrase that has cast a very wide net so as to include political thoughts and activities that may be unsuited to the thinking of the power elite in government.” Further on, Dr Rais warned:“An executive not having to worry about judicial scrutiny over its actions in an Act of Parliament such as the ISA will almost certainly, at least at some stage in the future, want to replace the rule of law completely. In the case of Malaysia, this tendency is only a matter of time and the courts may not be an effective barricade to such an eventuality.” Indeed! Indeed! However, what a tragedy that the same Dr Rais, who in 1995 was a leader of the opposition Semangat 46 party, has since 1996 rejoined Umno. Rais is, of course, entitled to his fundamental human right of political somersaulting from the opposition to the ruling party. How pathetic and what a pity, though, that he did not publicly advise the Malaysian people whether his view on the ISA as contained in his book have also somersaulted. Part and parcel And how sad indeed that Dr Rais has deserted ‘all those who have suffered from the tyranny of executive excesses’ and become part and parcel of that very tyranny itself, often strutting about the stage as ‘His Master’s Voice’ for Mahathir. Our prime minister who scolds Malaysians for being ‘ungrateful’ and who now seems to suffer from the delusion that he is as misunderstood as the legendary TE Lawrence, the so called ‘Lawrence of Arabia’, who was so much glorified by Hollywood many years ago. Who knows, our very own Follywood might one day immortalise Mahathir with a full length feature film perhaps to be called ‘Mahathir of Dystopia’. I won’t be surprised if Rais was to be chosen as the director of such an epic. The Oscars, oh, the Oscars! Just imagine ... ------------------------------------------------ FAN YEW TENG is a former member of Parliament and a former consultant to the United Nations. An author and lecturer, he is retired from active politics and is currently nearing completion of another book. |
| An Open Letter to Datuk Rais Yatim Oleh: Martin Jalleh (petikan drp FGR) ------------------------------------------------ Dear Datuk Rais (Forgive me for dropping the "Dr" -- I felt it was only appropriate since you have decided to "desert" your great dissertation -- "Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia:A Study of Executive Supremacy". ) It is so strange, Rais, -- the very words you once used to describe the "non-critical society" in Malaysia, seems so apt on you today. Indeed -- very "...perplexing has been the seemingly calm and patronizing attitude" which you have shown of late, "in facing and accepting (the Executive's) excesses..." "It is as if" you have "lost touch with... basic rights in a country that prides itself in being democratic and leading the voice of liberation within Third World countries". "There appears to be no resistance from (you)" -- as compared to "the Malaysian people" whom you had once drawn attention to -- those whom you claimed, have a "lack of understanding and appreciation of the rule of law", remember? But rest assured Rais, many of us can comprehend what you are going through. In fact your book has helped many to fathom how Executive Supremacy has "freed" you from your former political and academic convictions. Alas, when Executive Supremacy has such a hold on you, it is not surprising to hear you declare that the written views you once held were merely an 'academic exercise' and "a person should not be held to his academic work for the rest of his life". Though merely an "academic exercise" to you, your book gives us an insight to some of the probable reasons for your recently reformed views . "There can only be one explanation to this: the culture of fear has set in." Indeed, it must be quite frightening, Rais -- for if you were to stand by your convictions, you risk losing what you had called "the good life", "business opportunities" and "even work opportunities"...and of course the golden opportunity to be the de facto Law Minister in the PM's Department...or the Chief Justice one day? (You will have to contend with Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah of course.) Then there is also that "underlying fear of executive reprisal " which you wrote so vividly about, and we are often made aware of -- the latest being the ISA "victims" in Kamunting . How does it feel to be part of that group of Malaysians whom you lamented so passionately about -- they who are "reluctantly submissive in many respects.."? You were so right when you penned: "If one wants to lead, one has to join the ruling elite" and now that you are so much a part of that Executive Supremacy -- whose "tyranny" -- earned you a doctorate, (remember?) -- you can, in your words, only "look, listen and follow". You sound so much like the PM nowadays -- the man whom you criticised and condemned, on practically each of your 426-page "academic exercise". You seem to relish the Executive's "overriding power over the freedom of individuals' and in taking Suhakam, the judiciary and the public for a ride. You were right on when you declared that "...there has been nothing in the educational system of the country that encourages the inculcation of the rule of the law or the importance of the people's right to question the authorities on matters that affect their lives." "At least at university level there is a dire need for the students to learn about the rule of law in concept and practice." And when they do become a part of the Executive one day, they could, after your good example, renounce what they had been imbued with and declare it as purely an "academic exercise"! Those whom, you had dedicated your book to -- "all who have suffered from the tyranny of executive excesses" -- eagerly wait for your autobiography which should most appropriately be called: "Fetters under Executive Power: A Study of Academic and Political Hypocrisy". To end on an affirming note, how adept you are in contributing to the "mere chanting of the past" when it comes to the rule of law. Martin Jalleh ( 10 June 2001) Petikan daripada FGR |
| Surat terbuka kepada Rais Yatim Oleh Anual Bakri Haji Haron, Setiausaha Politik Menteri Besar Kelantan, Awak, SEBAGAIMANA awak mengharapkan Menteri Besar Kelantan tidak akan tersinggung dengan penggunaan ganti nama "awak" kepada diri beliau, saya juga mengharapkan awak tidak akan tersinggung dengan penggunaan ganti nama "awak" ini kepada individu yang berjawatan seorang menteri seperti awak. Tetapi sedarkah awak bahawa apabila awak menyatakan yang Menteri Besar Kelantan perlu menjaga peradaban bangsa Melayu dengan mengadap Sultan Kelantan bagi memaklumkan mengenai pindaan perlembagaan negeri Kelantan, awak sebenarnya mungkin telah menghina Perdana Menteri awak sendiri. Sudahkah awak semak sama ada Perdana Menteri awak telah dengan beradabnya mengadap Raja-Raja Melayu pada tahun-tahun pindaan perlembagaan 1993 dan 1994 dahulu? 2. Saya tidak dapat menjangkaui maksud kesungguhan awak untuk memperbesar-besarkan isu perlunya Menteri Besar Kelantan mengadap Sultan Kelantan bagi memaklumkan kepada baginda mengenai pindaan perlembagaan negeri Kelantan kerana awak sendiri menjelaskan bahawa keperluan ini bukanlah keperluan perundangan (dan ini turut dinyatakan juga oleh Presiden Majlis Peguam Malaysia), sebaliknya hanyalah bagi menjaga peradaban bangsa Melayu. Walaupun begitu, sebagai menghormati Sultan Kelantan, Menteri Besar sebenarnya telah membekalkan maklumat kepada baginda berhubung pindaan perlembagaan ini selaras dengan peruntukan Perkara XV(1) Perlembagaan Negeri Kelantan. 3. Kenyataan awak bahawa Menteri Besar Kelantan perlu mengemukakan dan memberi penjelasan kepada Sultan Kelantan mengenai butir-butir pindaan perlembagaan ini kerana ia menyentuh kebesaran, kedudukan dan kedaulatan baginda pula, selain daripada bertentangan dengan kenyataan awak di para dua, adalah bertentangan dengan kenyataan rasmi Peguam Negara yang bernaung di bawah bumbung awak sendiri di dalam surat beliau kepada Menteri Besar Kelantan bertarikh 5 Jun 2001, yang mana beliau bersetuju dengan penjelasan dan pandangan rasmi Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan bahawa pindaan yang dicadangkan ini tidak menyentuh keistimewaan, kedudukan dan kedaulatan baginda. 4. Kenyataan awak bahawa usaha untuk meminda perlembagaan negeri ini akan menjadi sia-sia sekiranya ia tidak diperkenankan oleh Sultan Kelantan setelah kelulusan Dewan Undangan Negeri diperolehi juga adalah bertentangan dengan kenyataan seorang pakar perundangan negara yang bersifat neutral, iaitu Prof. Shad Faruqi, bahawa: "Under the existing law in Kelantan, no enactment can be passed unless His Majesty has given assent: Articles 28, 39(1) and 39(3) of Part I of the state constitution. However, the Federal Constitution, in Section 11(2A) and 11(2B) of the Eighth Schedule, provides for the Ruler to be bypassed 30 days after the Bill is presented to him if he fails to sign it within this time. This law was inserted by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994 (Act A885). Its existence could be used by the Kelantan government to bypass the Sultan in the legislative process as and when necessary." 5. Kenyataan awak bahawa ironi tindakan kami ini ialah kami cuba mengurangkan kuasa Sultan apabila ia sesuai dengan keperluan politik kami, sedangkan Menteri Besar Kelantan serta rakan-rakan beliau merupakan antara golongan pertama menentang apabila Kerajaan Persekutuan meminda undang-undang berhubung kuasa Raja-Raja pada tahun 1994 juga adalah bertentangan dengan fakta kes yang sebenar. Fakta kes yang sebenar ialah sementara Ahli-Ahli Parlimen dari parti yang awak terajui ketika itu (S46) menentang dengan bertindak keluar daripada membahaskan Rang Undang-Undang Perlembagaan (Pindaan) 1994 di Dewan Rakyat pada 10 Mei 1994, Ahli-Ahli Parlimen dari parti kami (PAS) menyokong Rang Undang-Undang tersebut. 6. Berdasarkan kepada hujah-hujah ini, apakah tidak munasabah jika ada di kalangan kami yang menganggap bahawa awak tidak mempunyai walau secebis kredibiliti untuk menjadi seorang menteri yang menguruskan soal perundangan negara. Ini kerana awak jelas tidak mempunyai pengetahuan yang mencukupi tentang sesuatu isu; mengingkari nasihat dari kakitangan bawahan awak sendiri; mengingkari duluan Menteri Undang-Undang sebelum awak, iaitu Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, bahawa pindaan perlembagaan asal dahulu tidak menyentuh soal status, hak dan keistimewaan Raja-Raja di negara ini, sebaliknya ia hanya menyentuh aspek demokrasi berparlimen dan sistem monarki di negara ini; malahan, mengingkari pendirian Perdana Menteri awak sendiri di dalam isu ini. Beliau berkata: "Jika kerajaan diakui terdiri daripada wakil-wakil yang dipilih oleh rakyat untuk menentukan rakyat berkuasa, tetapi nasihat kerajaan berkemungkinan tidak diterima, ini bererti demokrasi berparlimen tidak wujud dan rakyat tidak berkuasa sepenuhnya." Bagi memastikan agar awak atau mana-mana pihak pun juga tidak akan memutarbelitkan pindaan ini bagi menuduh kami cuba menggugat keistimewaan, kedudukan dan kedaulatan Sultan Kelantan, saya perturunkan di sini kenyataan Perdana Menteri dan bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri awak sendiri sewaktu mereka membentangkan pindaan-pindaan perlembagaan 1993 dan 1994 dahulu. Kata Perdana Menteri awak: "Pindaan yang dicadangkan ini bertujuan mengelak atau menghalang daripada meningkatnya perasaan benci kepada raja yang boleh membawa kepada tuntutan untuk menghapuskan sistem beraja. Pindaan ini adalah untuk menyelamatkan raja-raja sendiri dan sistem Raja Berperlembagaan." Kata bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri awak: "Tujuannya (pindaan perlembagaan ini) ialah sekadar memaktubkan prinsip-prinsip yang disepakati iaitu kedaulatan rakyat dan kewibawaan institusi legislatif yang mewakili kehendak rakyat. Kemulian raja-raja akan terus dipertahankan dalam konteks raja berperlembagaan." Sememangnya awak tidak perlu memohon maaf, tetapi cukuplah dengan bersifat "gentleman" untuk sekurang-kurangnya mengakui kesalahan. |
 |
| rais yatim |
| KENYATAAN MEDIA (20 JUN 2001) SIKAP RAIS TERHADAP ISA : DPP PUSAT AKAN HANTAR MEMO KEPADA UNIVERSITY OF LONDON Dewan Pemuda PAS Pusat (DPP Pusat) sangat mengesali sikap talam dua muka Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri (JPM), Datuk Dr Rais Yatim tentang kedudukan ISA sebagai sebuah undang-undang di negara ini. Kenyataan-kenyataan Dr Rais sepanjang menjadi Menteri Di JPM ini jelas menggambarkan satu pandangan yang sangat bertentangan dengan pendirian beliau ketika mengemukakan tesis PhD Undang-undang di University of London beberapa tahun lalu. Tesis PhD Dr Rais yang berjodol Freedom Under Executive Power In Malaysia : A Study Of Executive Supremacy telah menyifatkan undang-undang ISA sebagai zalim, kolot dan ketinggalan zaman, tetapi sikap Dr Rais yang diberi tanggungjawab sebagai menteri yang bertanggungjawab terhadap undang-undang adalah sebaliknya. Sikap menjaga kepentingan perut dan peribadi ini adalah sama sekali tidak menggambarkan beliau sebagai seorang intelektual yang beriman dengan ilmunya. Memandangkan sikap yang sangat memalukan seluruh warga intelektual terutamanya University of London yang menganugerahkan ijazah PhD kepadanya, DPP Pusat akan menghantar satu memorandum kepada universiti tersebut supaya pengijazahan tersebut dikaji semula. Sebagai sebuah universiti yang ulung, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab University of London untuk menjaga maruh dan nama baik universiti daripada dicemari oleh seorang pelajarnya yang tidak bermaruah. DPP Pusat akan mendesak senat universiti tersebut supaya menarik balik PhD Dr Rais kerana perbuatan Dr Rais telah menghina universiti tersebut. DPP Pusat akan mengemukakan kepada University of London semua pandangan-pandangan Dr Rais temtang ISA yang bercanggah dengan prinsip kemanusian dan keadilan sejagat yang sepatutnya diperjuangkan oleh seluruh manusia yang berilmu dan mempunyai harga diri. HAJI MAHFUZ HAJI OMAR Ketua Dewan Pemuda PAS Pusat |
 |