Tag: justice

Categories
Politics & government

[2486] Glad Anwar is not guilty

I am one of many that expected Anwar Ibrahim to be found guilty. I expected so not because I believe he is guilty, but just because I distrust the Malaysian justice system. And when the judge ruled in favor of Anwar, I found myself pleasantly surprised. I am glad for the ruling for two reasons.

First, like I have mentioned, I do not believe that the former Deputy Prime Minister is guilty as charged. The whole episode appears ridiculous from the outset. The circumstances of the whole charge are suspect.

This of course opens me up to the charge of cherry picking: when the judgment works unfavorably, the system is accused as biased but when it works favorably, the system is fine. In my defense, I am not a fan of Anwar and I maintain certain distrust of him. That said, I think I can see gross injustice for what it is; this is not so much about Anwar Ibrahim per se.

It is really also about, if a person as influential as him can be treated like that, what about the ordinary man on the streets like me? Besides, we all (still) have a stake in this society. To have a gross injustice goes quietly in the night will spell trouble later if not immediately.

Second, which is probably more important and more concrete is that I really do not want to see another 1998 in terms of political strive. Furthermore, I personally have run out of enthusiasm for large protests and I definitely have issues with large and sustained protests like the ones in Bangkok not too long ago. I do not want to see a Bangkok in Kuala Lumpur.

I am a liberal but there is such a thing as too much protests. I am not contesting the rights of the protestors (as long as they are peaceful, and peaceful in the truest sense of the word and not according to the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011). The point I am bringing up is that continuous protests introduce protest fatigue. That fatigue can easily take away popularity of a cause. It makes many angry in the most unproductive manner. And I think, politically and strategically, this is an important factor that must not be discounted.

If a large protest had erupted today, it would blow up a conflict within me: between the distaste of large, sustained protests and the need to stand up. But with the ruling, I have escaped that seemingly impossible knot.

Despite all that, this is only a High Court ruling. Possibly, there is some way to go still, if the prosecution is to appeal the judgment today.

Categories
Conflict & disaster

[2464] Who takes the KL War Crimes Tribunal seriously?

You and I can sit at a cafe and argue whether former US President George Bush and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair are guilty of war crimes. We can pass our verdict but we must be out of our minds to think that the verdict is as legitimate as that of a proper court of law. You and I can organize a mock hearing and have all resemblance of a court of law much like the Model United Nations to the actual United Nations, but it is madness to think the make-believe court has any authority. Its ruling is irrelevant and unexecutable.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal and its organizer the Perdana Global Peace Foundation think otherwise.

They set up a court and passed rulings, pretending such action carry any weight. They actually take their business very seriously. The tribunal has everything from real judges to professors and complete with the defense team, which only the heaven knows what locus standi the team has to represent the two former world leaders. What makes the whole show all the more surreal is the exposure local mainstream media and others grant to the theatric.

Perhaps, this is an attempt of vigilantism. Frustrated at the international system, theirs is an effort at setting up a rival avenue for justice.

Vigilantism has its points and if the vigilante court commands influence in the society, it may be of use. In the anarchic Somalia, vigilante Islamic courts mushroomed to provide order and quickly became one of the pillars of the Somalian society. The locals welcomed the authority. There was real value to it.

But the vigilantism of Perdana’s Kuala Lumpur War Tribunal will not get the legitimacy of those in the Horn of Africa. And quite likely, any execution may in fact contravene actual laws.

Most sensible reports mindfully utilized the word symbolic or its synonyms as an adjective describing the Tribunal. Maybe, by emphasizing its symbolism and downplaying the pretension, the Tribunal can gain some gravitas.

But even as a symbol however, the Kuala Lumpur War Tribunal does not inspire much confidence. The Tribunal was created by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation whose chairman is the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. He is, of course, the paragon of an independent, credible judiciary. He has the all the credibility in the world to set up the Tribunal. His contributions to the Malaysian judiciary are unforgettable.

Let us pretend that the Tribunal was of consequence. Such pretension will show that if it was, then it would be a kangaroo court. The Foundation already holds prejudicial views against Bush and Blair. And the Foundation is the one that set up the tribunal. Does any one of us really expect anything more than a kangaroo court?

Who really takes the Tribunal seriously?

It is just another farce among farces we encounter everyday.

Categories
Activism Politics & government Society

[1390] Of Nurin to Chief Justice: A Collapse of Law and Order? by IKD

So okay. Right after I had my first real outing my new best friend, the Nikon D40, I gave an Institute for Policy Research-organized (Institut Kajian Dasar; IKD) forum a visit. I do not think I would like to write too much about it since one of the panels talked about what I wanted to blog in the first place; I am a little bit disheartened when somebody made the point public first. Anyway, he mentioned how trust is important and to some extent, the impact of lack of public trust to state institution. It is a little bit blurry whom spoke of that — it could only be either Mr. Cumaraswamy or Tunku Abdul Aziz — but that point is the most important lesson for many to take note from the big picture-kind of thinking.

On general however, the forum was about how, allegedly, rotten the judiciary is. From there on, the panel tried to convince the audience on why a royal commission is required to not just investigate the authenticity of the scandalous video made public earlier by PKR but the state of the judiciary as a whole. The sentiment of the panel was that it has been a downhill for judiciary independence in the spirit of separation of powers since 1988, the year when former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad orchestrated the removal Salleh Abbas from the office of the Lord President of the Supreme Court.

About the video itself, the footage released to the public is just first part of the video. According to Mr. Sivarasa Rasiah and Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, there is another approximately 6 minutes of unreleased clip. In unreleased clip according to Anwar Ibrahim further, Judge Ahmad Fairuz’s name can be clearly heard and more names were mentioned.

That asides, some of the usual suspects were there. By suspects, I meant bloggers! I think, if one attends too many public forums, sooner or later, the most of the faces would be recognizable.

Finally, pictures:

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

The banner.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

I apologize for the quality of the photo: I am still exploring the features of Nikon D40 but from the left, Tunku Abdul Aziz of Transparency International, Mr. Param Cumaraswamy formerly of the United Nations, the chairperson Mr. Sivarasa Rasiah, former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Secretary to the Bar Council Lim Chee Wee.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

And that is Din Merican.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — Howsy has more.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1381] Mengenai Utusan yang nakal

Utusan hari ini menyentuh tentang rakaman video yang didedahkan oleh Parti Keadilan Rakyat beberapa hari lalu. Di dalam laporan itu:

PUTRAJAYA 21 Sept. — Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi berkata, polis perlu menyiasat segera dakwaan kewujudan klip video yang menunjukkan seorang peguam kanan sedang bercakap dengan seseorang berhubung pelantikan hakim-hakim di negara ini. [Klip video: PM arah siasat. Utusan Malaysia. September 22 2007]

Perhatian harus diberikan kepada frasa ini: dakwaan kewujudan klip video. Adakah Utusan Malaysia sedang cuba memberi gambaran bahawa klip tersebut tidak wujud?

Tambahan lagi, Perdana Menteri yang dikasihi berkata:

Beliau berkata, langkah itu penting bagi menentukan sama ada klip video berkenaan boleh dipercayai atau tidak.

“Klip video dan transkripnya telah dihantar ke pejabat saya. Soalnya, adakah ia betul dan boleh dipercayai?

“Ini yang penting kerana video itu menunjukkan seorang peguam bercakap seorang diri sahaja. Lagi seorang kita tidak tahu siapa yang bercakap,” kata Abdullah pada sidang akhbar selepas mempengerusikan mesyuarat Suruhanjaya Polis ke-71 di sini hari ini. [Klip video: PM arah siasat. Utusan Malaysia. September 22 2007]

Adakah PM percaya yang peguam itu bercakap seorang diri sahaja?