On The Beat: By WONG CHUN WAI

Be mindful – those are the words of caution to delegates attending the Umno general assembly this week as it is almost certain that this would be the last meeting before the next general election.  

After last year’s assembly where certain delegates went overboard in their rhetoric on Malay rights – and sentiments are still simmering among many Malaysians – the party leadership is determined this would not be repeated.  

It is understood that the party top brass has taken stock of the views of other Barisan Nasional leaders.  

Umno leaders are well aware that they cannot afford a repeat of last year with the elections in the horizon. Not that the anti-establishment sentiments in urban areas would hurt Umno. Not even a bit, as Umno is probably at its strongest, despite what has been written in the blogs.  

There is no real challenge from PAS and Parti Keadilan Nasional. If there is any anxiety over how the Umno general assembly would be conducted, it would be on the part of the MCA and Gerakan.  

The 2008 elections would nowhere be like the 1999 polls, where Umno depended heavily on Chinese and Indian votes to pull through.  

This time, the anti-establishment votes would likely only be in the predominantly Chinese constituencies in Penang, Perak and the Klang Valley.  

Over the past week, two senior Umno leaders have advised Chinese voters against voting for the opposition.  

Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin said the Chinese voters would only be shooting themselves in the foot if they voted for the DAP or PKR as the community would only reduce its representation in government.  

In short, the Barisan government isn’t going to collapse and Umno is not going to lose seats in the 219-seat Dewan Rakyat.  

With only about 25 to 30 parliamentary seats with a strong Chinese electorate, the hardest hit would be the MCA and Gerakan if there is a swing to the opposition while Umno with its dependence on the rural heartland would win hands down.  

In an interview with Nanyang Siang Pau last week, Umno information chief Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib urged the Chinese to look at the big picture.  

He said they should not vote against the Barisan because they were unhappy with certain policies and wanted to “punish certain parties”.  

Muhammad said the community should not harbour the notion of teaching the Barisan a lesson.  

If the Chinese were to reject the Barisan in total because of certain policies, it would be akin to not seeing the forest for the trees, adding that it would affect their own interest in the long run.  

What Muhammad did not say bluntly was this – if you want to teach Umno a lesson, forget it, you can’t and, instead, you would just end up punishing the MCA or Gerakan.  

With the Chinese population dropping to 25% and likely to shrink further, Chinese voters are at a crossroads, as the Malay community is likely to grow up to 80% in the coming years.  

The Indian population has also continued to drop and, at present, there is not a single Indian majority parliamentary seat.  

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has given his commitment on power sharing but it cannot be denied that politics is also a numbers game.  

The MCA’s biggest challenge this election would be to convince the voters that their representation in government is crucial for the community.  

It would have to deal with the grouses of the community, many of which are not the doing of the MCA, but these issues would nevertheless have an impact on the voting trend.  

The Chinese community has always wanted the best of both worlds – the MCA to represent them in government and to handle their problems and the opposition to shout for them.  

The MCA’s method of resolving issues behind closed-doors, despite its effectiveness, does not seem sufficient.  

But at the Umno general assembly, where the largest attendance would be seen, it will be a show of unity this week.  

Ready to face the polls, the issues that would concern the delegates would be the political and economic rights of the Malays, and religion.  

The majority of the delegates are not going to be riled up over unhappy lawyers or a video clip.  

For the non-Malay voters watching from the sidelines, it would be an important lesson in “realpolitik”, a German political term which means practical considerations are more important than ideological notions.  

Peaceful surroundings: The goings-on at Bukit Aman can only be described as unprecedented and a scary development.

On Tuesday, Ramli came out in the open and admitted that he was the so-called RM27mil cop that the media had kept referring to in their reports on the probe. 

Clearly angry and even bitter, Ramli, 55, who is set to retire in March, blasted the ACA, the Attorney-General and the police for the manner in which they had carried out their investigations. 

Ramli knows the law well. He has a law degree from the International Islamic University and a Masters law degree from the University of London. He is also married to a Sessions Court judge. 

Ironically, Ramli who rose from the ranks of a constable, was at one time the boss of the current Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan. But they are now engaged in an open feud. 

Sitting with a group of senior officers, Ramli said he had nothing to hide and that his sources of income – buying and selling properties including shares – were all declared under oath.  

There is more than this dramatic revelation. On Oct 25, Sergeant-Major Hasan Aman, 49, and ASP Hong Keng Hock, 42, were charged at the Malacca Sessions Court with falsifying witness statements. 

Hong and Deputy Supt Baharin Mohd Rose, 52, were charged in Kuala Lumpur, also with using false documents, against businessman Goh Cheng Poh @ Tengku. Two days later, the duo, who are with the CCID, were charged with falsifying a witness statement in Pulai on June 5.  

Again, the charges have been unprecedented and some security and political analysts have even described the developments in the police force as worrisome with talk that there are factions supported by different powerful political personalities. 

Deputy Security Minister Datuk Fu Ah Kiow has dismissed talk there is a “war” between the police and the Internal Security Ministry, in replying to Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang who said from press reports, it sounded as if there was a power play between the ministry and the police. 

Fu’s statement, in downplaying the issue, is understandable, as the stability of the institution needs to be protected. It is the job of the police to maintain the security and peace of the nation.  

After all, the police headquarters is located at Bukit Aman and as the name suggest, the Government and the people have high expectations of the police force, particularly in keeping the country safe. 

But in August, IGP Musa startled the country when he revealed that he had been framed by his own men and warned his colleagues not to abuse their powers. 

It was a loaded remark from the top policeman and on the same day he spoke to the media, two packages containing 12-gauge shotgun cartridges were found addressed to him. The parcels, which also contained a threatening note, were discovered by workers at the Bintulu post office. 

No one is sure whether the so-called efforts to topple him and the parcel were related but one thing is for sure, the IGP's post is a hot seat. And no one can deny thetalk of disunity within the top brass of the force. 

Many policemen have found it hard to deal with Musa – he has cracked the whip, declared war against graft and transferred certain senior officials.  

He has also insisted that all policemen wear the Saya Anti-Rasuah badges on their uniforms. 

Musa has also made it compulsory for all policemen to declare their assets every six months and the lifestyles of his officers have also come under scrutiny.  

If they were to buy or sell property, Musa has ordered them to update their records.  

The sentiment is that Musa has been over-zealous in his task with some openly making known their displeasure of the regular transfers.  

Others said there can never be a quick-fix solution in the police force, where corruption has been long been an issue. It is well known that angry letters have been sent to Musa. 

His actions have hurt him, and he has been subjected to all kinds of allegations on the Internet. But the ACA has cleared him. 

More important, he has the Prime Minister’s backing. Musa has to accept the fact that in any organisation, there will always be resentment, jealousy and envy.  

Still, the power play is somewhat scary, if not macabre, to most Malaysians who have never witnessed such open tension within the police force.  

Maybe it’s Halloween but the can of worms being opened is disturbing, nevertheless.  

Allegations of judges on holiday with business tycoons to a prominent lawyer brokering appointments of top judicial positions have seriously harmed the image of the judiciary.  

Some have even questioned the integrity of our system in certain murder trials, claiming serious irregularities. 

These allegations may have no basis and in some instances, may have come about due to the lack of legal knowledge of the public.  

Nevertheless, they have tarnished the image of the judiciary and could lead to the erosion of public confidence in the institution.  

On Monday, the Sultan of Perak addressed the 14th Malaysian Law Conference and said such allegations had “grieved” him as he was once a member of the judiciary, adding that “recently, there have even been more disturbing events relating to the judiciary reported in the press.” 

There was more plain talk from him – he pointed out the unprecedented act of a former Court of Appeal judge writing in his post-retirement book about erroneous and questionable judgments delivered by the higher courts. 

He also cited a case of medical negligence involving the death of a lawyer which took 23 years to reach the Court of Appeal, saying there have also been reports that some judges had taken years to write their grounds of judgment involving accused persons who had been convicted and were languishing in death row. 

We have a serious problem, as Sultan Azlan said – there are perceptions that our judges are not independent and worse, incompetent. 

He has correctly stated that “nothing destroys more the confidence the general public, or the business community has in the judiciary, than the belief that the judge was biased when he decided a case, or that the judge would not be independent where powerful individuals or corporations are the litigants before him.” 

In short, the public must never perceive that there are two sets of law – one for the powerful and one for the ordinary people.  

The average Malaysian must never assume that the odds are against him in court because the judge would favour those with political or business influence. Impartiality, in a nutshell, is the core of any judiciary. 

Some of us may not like to hear this but more and more we keep hearing this, with many cynically predicting the court decisions of certain cases, even before the verdicts are delivered. 

There have been one or two surprising judgments over the past few years but they are not enough to restore public confidence, even if our politicians are quick to cite these cases to point out that the independence of the judiciary is intact. 

Malaysians do not want our judges to be anti-establishment to be deemed independent. Far from it.  

What they are seeking are fair and just judges. If we may add, sound and competent ones too, who also take time to back their written judgments with proper citations. 

It is important to note that Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has responded positively to the call by the Bar Council and Malaysians, in general, to reform the judiciary.  

The Prime Minister said the Government and the Bar Council were “on the same side and fighting for the same issues but with different style.”  

His amicable approach is in sharp contrast to the statements made by one or two ministers, which seem to smack of arrogance with their quick defensive, but often simplistic, dismissal of any proposal to reform the judiciary. 

The “I know better than you, so shut up” line only works against the Government as many of these calls are genuine.  

Many are made by lawyers and voters who support the leadership. Malaysia would have a competitive edge over other countries if businessmen and investors believe that our legal system, which has been well established, is impartial. But when they start turning to arbitration, then it is something we need to pay serious attention to and ask ourselves why they prefer this route.  

It is a blow to read that a recent World Bank survey on resolution of commercial disputes ranked Malaysia poorly, 63rd amongst 178 countries. Hong Kong is placed first and Singapore ranks fourth. Ironically, both inherited the British legal system like Malaysia. 

Sultan Azlan has also pointed out that judges must be mindful that they are appointed judges of all Malaysians and must be sensitive to the feelings of all Malaysians regardless of their race, religion and culture. 

There is a perception that some judges may put their religion or race first when hearing cases involving religion or that they are seen to pass the buck by refusing to make a decision, preferring to pass that responsibility to another court. 

The Bench has to realise that, more than ever, judges would also be judged when they deliver their judgments. 

On The Beat
By WONG CHUN WAI

THERE he goes again. As if on cue, Jerai MP Datuk Badruddin Amiruldin pulled yet another of his publicity stunts at the Dewan Rakyat last week. Malaysians, it seems, just have to expect him to utter outrageous remarks. 

Last week, the recalcitrant politician was grabbing the headlines again for the wrong reason. He doesn’t really deserve the publicity but the media find it difficult not to report on any verbal slugfest in Parliament. 

In the clash with Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh, he charged that the opposition politician’s use of a wheelchair was a punishment from God. 

Badruddin’s remarks were uncalled for and although he has apologised and retracted his remarks, he should not be let off without any warning from his Umno leaders. 

This is not the first time he has taken on the court jester’s role and we can assume it won’t be the last, unless he is not picked to contest in the next general election, or he loses his seat. 

He has provoked a woman MP by asking “what type of man would last with someone like the MP from Batu Gajah?” and blamed women with “indecent clothes” for rape, forgetting that those wearing the tudung (headscarf) and even grandmothers are among the victims. 

Badruddin has reportedly also used vulgar words in the Dewan Rakyat, a reminder made by Karpal Singh, which led to the clash between the two. 

Lacking in finesse 

During the heated debate, he said the DAP leader was in no position to lecture him as the latter had called MPs “animals”.  

“Dia panggil orang binatang, dia panggil macam-macam. Yang Berhormat sendiri kena bersopan santun kalau mahu ajar orang, kalau Yang Berhormat sendiri pun dah perangai macam itu dengan berkerusi roda, ini Tuhan telah tunjukkan kepada Yang Berhormat.” 

That led to an uproar, with other opposition MPs joining in the fray, and both sides trading accusations, saying the remark was an affront to the disabled, and with Badruddin telling Karpal Singh that “kepala Yang Berhormat sudah jem tak baik, tak baik”. 

Meanwhile, Karpal Singh kept repeating the profanity used by Badruddin, saying it was in the Hansard despite the latter’s denial. 

Such disregard for parliamentary decorum is most disappointing. Badruddin is not the only one, because the other elected representatives who lack finesse, or class, to put it clearly, include Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan) and Datuk Mohd Said Yusuf (BN-Jasin). 

They are an embarrassment to the Barisan Nasional and the Government. They may make headlines but Malaysians expect better quality debate from our legislators. To put it bluntly, they are making a fool of themselves and, as taxpayers, we are not amused that we are paying their allowances. 

Of course, some Opposition MPs are no better. Karpal Singh is no angel and Badruddin is right in implying that the pot should not call the kettle black because the veteran politician also has a record of name-calling. Karpal Singh, he said, had used words like bodoh (stupid) and lembu (cow) on his fellow MPs. 

In fact, reporters covering the Dewan Rakyat will tell you that Karpal Singh does not do much research on his speeches but he makes the news because of his rhetoric in the Dewan Rakyat. Not to forget his suspensions and walkouts. 

Last year, PAS MP Abdul Fatah Harun created a ruckus when he said that women divorcees were gatal (randy), saying he noticed that single mothers did not look like they were sad about their divorce. 

He said this was based on his observation at gatherings and parties, adding that these women seemed to be gatal. 

The talk in the Dewan Rakyat lobby and canteen, among the lawmakers and press, is that some of these MPs from rural and semi-rural constituencies are not the least worried about being criticised by the English press or bloggers. 

Their supporters reason that they have a grip on their rural voters and that their rhetoric has no political backlash at all as such news do not reach their voters. 

If this is the reasoning, this assumption is certainly an insult to their electorate because we would like to believe that the voters would also judge them on their parliamentary performance and not merely be grateful for their contributions to the village functions. 

Same old excuse 

Malaysian voters are also tired of MPs who give the excuse that when they argue aggressively in the Dewan Rakyat, they are doing so to defend their race and religion. Such justification, to intimidate opponents, is unwarranted. 

The irony of last week’s controversy was that it started off with Karpal Singh attacking the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) of being irrelevant, claiming there were now perompak (robbers) and conmen in the party. 

With parliamentary privilege before him, he named the leaders in that category and, within minutes, he had moved on to Badruddin on the question of conduct. Or misconduct, as we think so. 

As Malaysians, we have a reminder for our politicians – think before you speak. Use your head because utterances which smack of insensitivity and ignorance can be used against you during the polls.  

So, can Malaysian taxpayers see some arrests this week or the subsequent weeks now that the holidays are over?  

It has been reported that the officials being investigated were from at least two ministries said to have bought equipment that were “overly priced”, causing the government losses of millions of ringgit.  

Malaysians would certainly like to see the culprits hauled to court as we are fed up with the mismanagement of public funds.  

We taxpayers would certainly like to know the person or persons responsible for using our money to pay RM224 for a RM32 set of screwdrivers.  

Let’s also see the faces of those who approved RM1,146 for a set of pens costing RM160 and RM5,700 for a car jack worth RM50, as outlined in the 2006 A-G’s report.  

The Government also paid RM8.36mil more than the market price to buy items, including technical books, for the National Youth Skills Institutes.  

Two helicopters worth RM117.76mil purchased by the police air wing could not be used as they did not meet specifications, yet another RM15.4mil was spent to train pilots to fly these helicopters.  

The Customs Department under-utilised its RM290mil information technology system but was planning to spend another RM451.30mil on a new system.  

Trail of abuse 

Surely there must be a trail that reveals misdeeds that the ACA can track and book these culprits.  

It has been reported that the ACA probe would be centred on three aspects. One was whether government officers had received bribes from parties in the private sector.  

The agency was also investigating if anyone had made false claims and also if those who had been recorded as having received money had actually received it.  

The investigation, it was reported, would also ascertain if the number of items supplied to the government department or agency concerned matched the numbers ordered.  

We understand and appreciate the necessity of the ACA to cover their tracks to ensure a solid case against the offenders but we hope there will be quick action against those responsible.  

It would also be meaningless if only the ikan bilis or small fries are arrested in this exercise. The ministries should at least apologise for these fiascos if the senior officials who once headed these ministries have been transferred to other agencies or bodies.  

The refusal to take responsibility seems to be an ugly culture of some of our senior officers, who prefer to maintain their silence in the hope that such controversies would blow over once the media lose interest.  

Not many senior officials have resigned for their failures, unlike those in Japan, despite Malaysia having adopted the Look East policy for over 20 years. It doesn’t help that among civil servants, some perceive that their political masters are not clean and had probably made more on the take.  

But Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has sent word down that civil servants who waste public funds should be punished and, if there are elements of corruption, they should be charged.  

He has told his listeners, including editors, that he encouraged media reports highlighting such abuses and wanted action taken.  

It has been a double-edged sword for Pak Lah as such openness has caused much uneasiness among the powerful and influential, who are not used to such scrutiny from the top. While there have been similar A-G reports in the past, the standard practice of leaving it to the ACA to probe has shown little, if any, results.  

Dented image 

The opposition has also used the A-G reports to hit out at the leadership and, as a result, has dented the leadership’s image. Certainly there would be a political price, especially in urban areas, during the elections.  

But without doubt, Pak Lah is determined to go after those who do not practise good governance in government.  

For a start, the ministries and agencies must improve their internal audit systems of checks and balances. They must learn to have more efficient controls on financial expenditures as they need to realise that the A-G would eventually catch up on them.  

A strong message from the leadership that those who foul up would be punished should help inculcate such a working culture. Certainly there should be preventive action but the public rightly wants to see punitive action too.  

It is no good merely transferring offenders, particularly those suspected of graft, to another section or other agencies.  

A few years back, a complaint was made against a Customs officer who asked for money without issuing a receipt and, although the case was highlighted by the media, the person was merely transferred to another desk.  

Malaysians want to see action and offenders penalised. That’s surely fair.  

For a year, she was known as the girl seen lugging a 9kg battery pack to power her mechanical heart. The battery pack resembled an overweight schoolbag.  

She had literally given up hope but God, as we say, has His way and timing. Two hearts in two days – it’s nothing short of a miracle. In her case, two miracles.  

And thanks to the team at the National Heart Institute, Malaysian Air Force personnel who flew the two hearts to Kuala Lumpur, and many others, Hui Yi is getting another chance at living. I salute and congratulate everyone who made it happen. 

Regardless of their race, Malaysians all want her condition to improve after her second heart transplant at the National Heart Institute.  

The dedicated 34-member team headed by chief cardiothoracic surgeon Datuk Dr Mohd Azhari Yakub fought against time to save Hui Yi after her body rejected the first heart.  

The 1.30am operation lasted six-and-a-half hours, finally ending at 8am. The first transplant operation on Wednesday lasted 10½ hours.  

Touching hearts 

Her condition may be stable following her successful operation but she remains in critical condition. Hui Yi still needs plenty of prayers for her to pull through.  

Hui Yi’s case has touched the hearts of many Malaysians for other reasons: it was Utusan Malaysia, a Malay language newspaper, which pushed hard for her case, just when other newspapers were losing interest as they took on new issues.  

Second, a Malay boy’s family agreed to donate his heart to Hui Yi, believing that it was the right thing to do.  

That simple act transcended race and religion and reaffirms the fact that all human beings are the same.  

Two years ago, Muhammad Fikri Nor Azmi, then 15, underwent a heart transplant and the donor was a non-Malay. Today, the country’s first mechanical heart patient is a healthy teenager. 

In times of difficulties, Malaysians have always risen to the occasion and this has been proven again and again. Almost daily, on our streets, we find Malaysians helping each other in accidents or simply to remove stalled cars, without being racially prejudiced.  

In many ways, our politicians need to take a leaf from ordinary wage-earning Malaysians, who are not lobbying for contracts, awards or positions. Race has never been an issue.  

The team of IJN doctors are also almost all Malays except for two Chinese and three Indians, assisted by four people from the Institute of Respiratory Medicine and 17 paramedics. It is a testimony that Malaysian doctors are capable and efficient.  

As we celebrate the success of the second operation, we must be mindful that two lives have been lost. The first was a 15-year-old boy, who was involved in a fatal road accident in Sitiawan, Perak. The second donor, Chin Yoon Koon, 20, died, also in an accident, in Johor Baru.  

There is also an important lesson for all of us to learn – many Malaysians are waiting for an organ transplant, not necessarily just the heart. There’s a long queue and not enough Malaysians are prepared to sign up for a good cause.  

It is important for hospitals to carry out campaigns now to get Malaysians to donate their organs; this is the time, when public awareness is at its height.  

Sri Lanka, for example, has the largest number of cornea donors and, over the last 30 years, the country’s Eye Bank has sent over 30,000 sight-restoring corneas to surgeons in 60 countries.  

This is possible because oblation of one’s body is a Sri Lankan cultural-religious tradition with an average of 15 to 20 people filling up forms for eye donation every day. The result is that the country has stock in excess of the country’s needs.  

Religious groups obviously play a huge role in human tissue donation as clerics, priests and monks are respected and their congregation often respond to such social concern calls.  

Vital first step 

For example, it is well known that Malays make up the largest number of blood donors and during the fasting month, the supply in hospitals drop. Churches and temples can respond to this need by organising campaigns for the faithful to donate blood.  

The fact is that more Malaysians must be willing to pledge to donate their hearts, kidneys, livers, pancreas and other body parts because the percentage of registered donors is very much lower than that in other countries.  

Spain, Norway, the United Kingdom, France and Canada are among the biggest human tissue donors in the world. Countries with successful programmes allow donors to have explicit consent on their driving licences to ensure quick time for hospitals to respond.  

This is something that can be easily incorporated into our MyKad or even our normal licences with the support of Pos Malaysia.  

There is little point in saying how caring we are if many of us are not willing to take the first step – fill up the forms for organ transplants.  

As it is now, there are only 108,000 of us on the National Transplant Registry. Such forms should be made easily available to the public. It is important we all have a heart for those in need.  

On The Beat
By WONG CHUN WAI

IT’S the wrath of the people – that best describes the uprising of the people of Myanmar who have had enough of the dictatorship in their country, who has turned the mineral-rich country into an exporter of cheap labour. 

The military generals have ruled the country for 42 years with an iron fist and it is unlikely that they will let go of their grip. They have retaliated with guns and bullets, the only language the junta knows.  

But now, the generals have been tested as never before. The unprecedented protest march by the monks, in a devoutly Buddhist nation, must have caught the junta by surprise. 

The protest began on Aug 19 after the government raised fuel prices. Initially, the protest involved only civilians but the impact changed dramatically when the monks took to the streets. 

For the first time, the world has been able to follow the peaceful protest by thousands of these monks through central Yangon and around the Shwedagon pagoda through modern technology.  

Despite the media blackout in Myanmar, the people have been able to exchange information on the protest through the Internet and mobile phones. Censorship, governments all over the world need to learn, is no longer possible and, certainly, laws that suppress the media are fast becoming obsolete because of the advent of technology. 

The thousands of protesters in Yangon turned citizen journalists by video recording the events taking place and sending via the Internet to media and non-governmental organisations in Bangkok and even to Europe.  

The repressive regime may be able to impose a ban on journalists entering the borders but even the Malaysian media has been able to keep the lines open with their contacts in Myanmar.  

There have been restrictions on the use of mobile telephones and the Internet but certainly the junta has not been entirely successful in intercepting or blocking news.  

So far, there has no been official leadership that claims to lead the Saffron Uprising, which must have further pressured the junta. Having learnt from the brutal suppression of the pro-democracy movement in 1988 where thousands were killed, the leaders must have been better prepared this time. 

At a time when the world demands transparency and integrity, the junta has not been able or has refused to respond to such calls. The regime continues to believe that it is immune to power challenges. 

it has snubbed its close allies in Asean, who had tried but failed to persuade them through constructive engagement. Again, this pariah government has ignored pleas from the world to stop the protest. 

But this time, the junta may have gone too far. It has crushed the student rebellion, defied the 1990 poll results and jailed Aung San Suu Kyi. But it is surely a fatal political move for the army to shoot monks, the most organised institution in Myanmar. 

The drastic, if not desperate, move to end the street protest in a violent manner has shocked the world, particularly Buddhists worldwide. The monks have the support of people, regardless of their race and religion, who believe the people of Myanmar deserve a better quality of life – which they have been robbed of by the junta. 

In an editorial in Singapore’s Straits Times, the newspaper aptly wrote “it has the power of moral righteousness on its side: the generals can summon up no more than a mailed fist. With or without civilians joining in the marches, in what manner the military authorities respond to this moral threat to their legitimacy could determine whether the Myanmar sees light ahead or remains mired in the dark ages”, while the New York Times commented that “the junta responded in a predictable, entirely wrongheaded way. It sent troops into the streets.” 

The world needs to send a powerful message to the despots of Myanmar – the civilised world does not tolerate its reign of terror and suppression of the people, who can no longer live with the continuing brutality. 

Why should the people of Myanmar be denied the prosperity and progress enjoyed by their neighbours like Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand? After all, Burma was once a strong nation. 

More than ever, Myanmar needs the world to help them. It is time for China, Russia and India, which have great influence on Myanmar, to tell the generals that their days are over. 

Those of us who are old enough might remember the image of a Buddhist monk who set himself on fire in the early 60s. Sitting impassively in the central market square of then Saigon, now Ho Chin Minh city, the monk had protested against the corrupt Vietnamese regime then. 

The South Vietnamese government troops had opened fire to disperse students and monks, who were banned from carrying Buddhist flags on Wesak Day. The Buddhist leadership quickly organised a protest that led to seven monks burning themselves to death. 

That image of these monks has remained ingrained in my mind. As I watched the television coverage of the protesting monks in Myanmar, holding the same Buddhist flags, and being shot, there is a feeling of deja vu all over again. 

Some things never change. Instead, they repeat themselves. It took a while but the government that shot monks in Vietnam was eventually toppled. We hope the same happens in Myanmar.  

Comment
By WONG CHUN WAI

IT HAS fallen short of the expectations of most Malaysians who wanted a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the eight-minute video clip said to involve a prominent lawyer chatting with a senior judge to broker the appointment of judges. 

A three-man independent panel headed by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor has been formed to probe the authenticity of the video clip. 

Those who favour a Royal Commission of Inquiry have said that it will have wider powers to gather evidence while others argue that the independent panel is sufficient to carry out the investigation.  

But an important step has been taken. Bar Council chairman Ambiga Sreenevasan has put on record that she has faith in Haidar and the other two members, social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye and former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar, saying all three are of the highest integrity. The Bar Council, she said, is prepared to cooperate with the panel.  

The respect accorded to the panel is important because what Malaysians are interested in is to know the identity of the lawyer in the clip and whether the conversation was real. 

The wheels of justice have also taken a step further with Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail saying the Anti-Corruption Agency has been directed to record a statement from Datuk V.K. Lingam, the lawyer implicated in the video clip. 

Lingam will be required to verify the authenticity of the clip and almost certainly be asked whether he is the man in the video clip, as claimed by those who released it.  

Lingam is said to be overseas on a business trip in Europe and has not responded to calls from the media, who wanted him to respond to the allegations. 

Those who cry for justice, many with the best of intentions because of their growing frustrations with the system, must also allow those implicated to defend themselves. That is what justice is all about. 

Do not forget that many of us were quick to believe the allegation that it was a Chinese national who was forced to do nude squats and captured on video. Malaysian officials hurriedly apologised to Beijing while talk shows in Taiwan and Hong Kong condemned Malaysia. In the end, she turned out to be Malaysian, creating plenty of red faces.  

Let’s not be too impulsive, even if we seem quite sure of what we have seen. Sometimes, it is best we do not assume too much. 

Another important point: seven years ago, Lingam was pictured with then Chief Judge of Malaya Tun Eusoff Chin while on a holiday trip to New Zealand in 1994, which created a storm. There were plenty of insinuations, which led to Eusoff threatening to sue anyone who claimed the trip was paid for. 

He showed credit card bills and bank statements for the trip, adding that he had met many lawyers and students who wanted to have photographs taken with him. 

“Judges are not robots. Judges are human beings. They have to have friends. When they die, their friends will have to bury them. Only people without relatives and friends will be buried by, maybe, the hospital authorities,” he told reporters in 2000. 

There are many defence arguments in the present case – no one is sure whether there is a judge chatting on the other side as there has been a denial. The person could claim he was merely bragging while the video clip itself could have been edited by the opposition.  

It has not helped that those named in the video clip have preferred not to respond to the allegations. The judge implicated has denied talking to the lawyer, through de facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz. 

By keeping silent, those implicated have allowed the controversy to drag on and Malaysian lawyers cannot be blamed for being angry because the integrity and credibility of the judiciary is at stake. 

It would be foolish to dismiss the march involving the more than 2,000 lawyers, activists and the public as, in the words of Nazri, “unbecoming.” Nazri also shot down the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister asking that a permanent judicial commission be in charge of judicial appointments. 

The march certainly was not spontaneous, as claimed by a Bar Council official, as transportation was organised and prior notices given. But the point is that no one should ignore a protest by a multi-racial group of professionals, who cut across all political affiliations. 

The protest would probably include members and supporters of Barisan Nasional component parties, who have expressed their displeasure at the judiciary and have demanded for quick intervention to restore confidence. It has remained an issue since the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President in 1988. 

It is understandable that Putrajaya would prefer a delegation instead of 2,000 people on the streets to voice their unhappiness. And surely, they do not want such large-scale protests to happen again but it is imperative that the leadership hear these voices. 

There is no need for politicians to always adopt a partisan stand to any dissenting opinion, particularly if it can be accommodated for the good of the country. 

In all fairness, too, we must commend Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for his willingness to quickly order an investigation by the independent panel.  

Note from the Webmaster:

In response to this comment, a letter was published in The Star on Tuesday October 2, 2007

Nazri explains statement on ‘lawyer’s protest’

WHAT I like about your paper is because it has been very fair to me. Once again, I seek your forbearance to allow me to explain my statement about “Lawyer’s protest” which was quoted and commented upon by Wong Chun Wai in his recent article. 

Fundamental to the concept of an independent judiciary is the non-interference of either the executive or the legislative in the judiciary.  

I believe this was the reason the lawyers in Pakistan protested, because there was interference by the executive in the judiciary when President Gen Pervez Musharraf sacked the CJ of Pakistan. 

However, in Malaysia, it is the other way around. Lawyers took to the streets to ask the executive to interfere in the judiciary. They were asking the Prime Minister to take action against the CJ. 

Hence the term “unbecoming” used by me in describing the action of the lawyers. 

As to the immediate dismissal of their proposal, it is only because I have dealt with this matter earlier with the members of the Bar, including attending a forum organised by them on the same issue; and on both occasions I have said the stand of the government is No. 

Also, as an insider, I do know the Government is comfortable with the present arrangement in appointing judges as accorded by the Constitution, coupled by the Prime Minister’s stance of keeping at arm’s length decisions made by judges.  

The Deputy Prime Minister has also said there is no necessity at the moment to form a Royal Commission to appoint and promote judges. 

I have always been direct, and see no point in giving hope when there is none. 

I have been informed there are 13,000 registered members of the Bar, and 1,000 protesting lawyers is hardly a majority; and compared with the 10,000,000 voters, it is a drop in the ocean. 

I believe the opposition will make an election issue out of this. Let us wait for the people to decide in the coming general election. 

I do not know whether I am right or wrong but if I do err, I am very sure it is on the right side. 

MOHAMED NAZRI ABDUL AZIZ,
Minister in The Prime Minister’s Department. 

The four-year-old video, probably recorded by someone known to the lawyer, has become the subject of a controversy because if there were any truth to the accusations by the opposition, it would have serious implications on the judiciary. 

The media has treated the subject with care because they are aware of the mega suits that will follow if the accusations cannot be substantiated. 

The bloggers, less worried about the financial and legal implications, have identified the lawyer and senior judge and some have even uploaded the video clip.  

The Bar Council members have decided to march to the Prime Minister’s Office tomorrow to hand over a memorandum demanding a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the allegations. 

The protest march, if it takes place, is unprecedented, because the last time such a gathering took place was in the late 1980s, when the Bar protested against then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad over the Official Secrets Act and other laws. 

Together with unionists, journalists, academicians and activists, they wore anti-OSA badges and black armbands at the entrance of the Parliament in protest against these laws, which they regarded as draconian. These laws are still in existence today. 

On Sunday, the senior judge implicated in the video clip denied he was the person in question. Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the de facto Law Minister, said he was contacted by the judge who denied the allegation. 

Although the issue has upset many Malaysians, it will be difficult to prove the allegations. For a start, the authenticity of the video clip would have to be proven to ensure it was not doctored.  

It is an eight-minute video clip, which the opposition has admitted was edited. Parti Keadilan Rakyat, which released it, has said this was done to protect the whistle-blower. 

Secondly, although the video clip is clear and the person on the video can be identified, or least bears much resemblance to the said lawyer, the fact that it was edited makes it very difficult to use it as evidence in court. 

Thirdly, it would not come as a surprise if the lawyer in question claimed he was merely play-acting to impress his listeners of his “brokering power”.  

In short, he could say he was merely bragging. But if that is the case, then he has plenty to explain to the Bar Council, of which we can assume he is a member, and he might walk away with just a slap on the wrist. 

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail has said there was no criminal element in the video clip as the conversation was monologue in nature. He said there was no clear reference that the lawyer was talking to a top judicial officer. 

But the opposition is not letting such defences off lightly. They have pointed out the sequence of events, saying there were many coincidences, and that no one should downplay the gravity of the case. 

The controversy has also become louder because the lawyer concerned has not issued any denial. Now, that his name has been widely circulated and implicated, he should come out to give an explanation. 

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has correctly called on the police to investigate the matter, saying “we cannot treat this matter lightly” as the integrity of the judiciary is in question. 

Certainly, PKR is doing so to score political points as the party could have instead given the video to the police or Anti-Corruption Agency. But this does not mean we should ignore the controversy. 

We shouldn’t shift the goal post – because the issue at hand is the integrity and credibility of the judiciary, which is an important branch in the concept of separation of powers in a democracy. 

The judiciary serves as a check and balance to allow democracy to function effectively.  

It also serves as an important avenue for the people to seek justice, including seeking redress from the executive. 

Democratic countries with established judicial systems are more attractive to investors because businessmen have confidence they could rely on the courts if they have problems, compared to authoritarian or theocratic countries. 

It is important that we protect the image of our judiciary. There should not be any perception that the system can be tampered or worse still, bought, because it would not just dent its credibility but erode it. 

The world, not just Malaysians, is watching how the authorities handle this episode.  

ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI

IT was a dumb idea from the beginning. The Selayang Municipal Council (MPS) rightly deserves the bashing from many Malaysians for its inane dog-catching competition. 

The council may have good intentions by holding a contest with prize money to reduce the number of unlicensed mongrels in the district but the whole exercise was certainly ill conceived. To put it bluntly, it was insensitive and cruel. 

The media first started reporting the competition as a Klang Valley metro news item but it soon generated into a national controversy as the angry public made protest calls to newspaper offices. 

The MPS had offered residents at least RM11,000 in cash prizes if they could catch up to over 150 stray dogs within six months to solve the stray dog problem in the area. 

Its president Zainal Abidin Azim said the competition was introduced as it had received about 80 complaints about stray dogs every month, adding that despite catching 200 stray dogs every month as part of its animal control management, the problem had remained unsolved. 

Under the competition, residents were required to deliver the dogs alive with photographs of the captured animals as proof while the council would provide tools for these bounty hunters. 

The first prize winner would walk home with RM15,000, the runner-up RM13,000 while the third-placed winner RM11,000. The MPS also offered RM20 for each stray dog caught as an incentive to the dog-catchers. 

Mongrels may not be the top choice of many serious dog owners but animal lovers cannot accept untrained residents going around the neighbourhood nabbing these canines.  

These hunters are not just hurting the animals but may even endanger themselves because these stray dogs could become vicious and attack them in defence. 

Last week, common sense finally prevailed when the MPS called off the competition following a meeting between state executive councillor Datuk Tang See Hang, Zainal and animal rights groups and pet owners. 

Tang, who had earlier launched the ludicrous competition, said the decision had to do with safety concerns expressed by various groups that untrained hunters could hurt themselves. 

The MPS has now agreed to work closely with the SPCA and other animal rights groups to ensure that dogs are handled and caught by trained personnel. The council will also be strict on irresponsible pet owners who abandon their pets. 

Without doubt, there must be an effective programme involving the MPS and the SPCA to reduce the number of stray dogs in the district because no one wants to come into contact with wild or sick dogs. 

But such competitions, as dog handler and professional groomer Noraini Rozaiti Mahmud said, would inherently attract over-zealous residents and this “could result in someone getting injured and the dogs being blamed and crucified for attacking a person”. 

Many dog owners are also worried that this competition would reinforce the perception, if not prejudices, among some people that dogs are bad, dirty and deserve to be killed. 

Dogs are regarded as pets, if not family members, by most of us. But their role as animal companions to the elderly, sick and particularly the blind has not been given due recognition. For many of the elderly who stay alone, these furry animals have become their only source of joy and loyal companion.  

Some of us take for granted these intelligent animals and only realise their crucial role as rescuers during earthquakes, even in countries that forbid ownership of these animals for religious reasons. It is during such emergencies that these four-legged rescuers have to be flown in to save human lives.  

Dogs have now been used by enforcement agencies to sniff out pirated DVD manufacturers, something unheard of previously. Anti-drug agencies have long relied on dogs to nab traffickers at airports. 

Children who are given dogs as pets learn the meaning of responsibility and affection early in life. And when their pet dies, they experience grief. These are lessons in life that the young learn.  

What the MPS and the SPCA can do is to work together to tackle the problem, including paying professionals to nab these dogs.  

The residents in Selayang should be encouraged to neuter their dogs to stop the growing number of these animals. 

It is not just dogs that the council should worry about – stray cats and crows that rummage rubbish bins are unsightly, and some kind of control is necessary to keep the district clean. 

Irrespective of our religion, it is important we show that animals are God’s creatures and should be properly treated.  

What kind of message are we sending when we adopt inhumane and barbaric measures to clamp down on creatures we deem unwanted and wild?  

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way animals are treated.”