Tubuh Suruhanjaya Diraja kaji kesan pindaan perlembagaan

Tubuh Suruhanjaya Diraja kaji kesan pindaan perlembagaan
Ooi Heng & Elijah Khor

Sebagai rakyat Malaysia, kita menyambut ulang tahun penubuhan Hari Malaysia yang ke-53 pada 16 September ini. Kemudian, kita akan menyambut ulang tahun Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang ke-60 pada tahun 2017.

Beberapa bulan lagi, kita akan melangkah masuk ke tahun 2017. Sehubungan itu, badan pemikir Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU) mencadangkan agar satu Suruhanjaya Diraja ditubuhkan untuk mengaji kesan-kesan pindaan-pindaan Perlembagaan Persekutuan semenjak perlembagaan ini diperkenalkan secara rasmi pada 31 Ogos 1957.

Banyak pindaan Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah dilakukan semenjak tahun 1957. Mengikut pakar perlembagaan, Profesor Shad Saleem Faruqi, sehingga tahun 2005 Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah dipinda sebanyak 42 kali. Oleh kerana setiap kali Perlembagaan Persekutuan dipinda, ianya melibatkan sebilangan pindaan individu, dijangkakan bahawa jumlah pindaan yang terlibat adalah sekitar 650.[ http://www.thesundaily.my/node/176393%5D

Sebelum tahun 2008, Kerajaan Barisan Nasional banyak melakukan pindaan perlembagaan yang memerlukan majoriti dua pertiga di Dewan Rakyat. Daripada pindaan-pindaan tersebut, terdapat pindaan yang mengundang kontroversi.

Baru-baru ini, apabila Akta Majlis Keselamatan Negara 2016 (Akta MKN 2016) diwartakan pada 7 Jun 2016 dan dikuatkuasakan pada 1 Ogos 2016, berbangkit kontroversi bahawa sehari selepas Majlis Raja-Raja mengembalikan Rang Undang-Undang Majlis Keselamatan Negara kepada Jabatan Peguam Negara kerana mahu beberapa peruntukan diperhalusi, Rang Undang-Undang tersebut dianggap telah diperkenan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong pada 18 Februari 2016, menurut Fasal (4A) Perkara 66 Pelembagaan Persekutuan.

Sehari selepas Akta MKN 2016 dikuatkuasakan, mantan Ketua Pembangkang Parlimen Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim memfailkan saman pemula bagi memohon perisytiharaan bahawa Akta MKN 2016 yang berkuat-kuasa pada 1 Ogos 2016, adalah tidak sah dan tidak mengikut perlembagaan.

Kontroversi ini berbangkit melibatkan, antara lain, pindaan perlembagaan pada ketika Kerajaan Barisan Nasional mempunyai majoriti dua pertiga di Parlimen untuk melakukan pindaan seumpama. Namun, ini bukanlah satu-satunya kontroversi yang melibatkan pindaan perlembagaan semenjak tahun 1957.

Jika pada Pilihan Raya Umum ke-14 yang akan datang, Kerajaan Barisan Nasional kembali ke Parlimen dengan majoriti dua pertiga, kami menjangkakan, banyak lagi pindaan perlembagaan yang akan dibentang ke Dewan Rakyat untuk mendapat kelulusan.

Lantaran itu, kami berpendapat, sehubungan dengan ulang tahun ke-60 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, ada kewajarannya satu Suruhanjaya Diraja ditubuhkan untuk mengaji kesan-kesan pindaan-pindaan perlembagaan yang telah dilakukan semenjak tahun 1957.

Kajian Suruhanjaya Diraja dapat melihat sejauh mana semangat kemerdekaan, sejarah penubuhan Malaysia dan prinsip asas Perlembagaan 1957 dihayati dan sejauh mana pindaan-pindaan perlembagaan sehingga hari ini telah memberi kesan kepada diri Perlembagaan dan seterusnya kesannya terhadap tiga cabang utama negara, yakni cabang kehakiman, cabang perundangan dan cabang eksekutif.

Malaysia melaksanakan demokrasi berparlimen ala-Westminster. Namun begitu, model Malaysia berbeza dengan model United Kingdom. Model United Kingdom adalah berasaskan ‘Supremasi Parlimen’ (Parliamentary Supremacy). Sedangkan model Malaysia adalah berasaskan ‘Supremasi Perlembagaan’ (Constitutional Supremacy).

Berbeza dengan United Kingdom yang tidak mempunyai sebuah dokumen perlembagaan, Malaysia mempunyai sebuah dokumen perlembagaan bernama ‘Perlembagaan Persekutuan’ dan ianya merupakan rujukan tertinggi entiti politik bergelar Malaysia.

Seperti yang termaktub dalam Fasal (1) Perkara 4 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, “Perlembagaan ini ialah undang-undang utama Persekutuan dan apa-apa undang-undang yang diluluskan selepas Hari Merdeka yang tidak selaras dengan Perlembagaan ini adalah tidak sah setakat ketidakselarasan itu.”

Hal ini bermaksud, apabila wujudnya akta parlimen yang melanggar peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, cabang kehakiman seharusnya menyemak semula akta tersebut tanpa ketakutan atau ‘without fear and favour’.

Jika sekiranya didapati sesuatu akta parlimen itu memang bercanggah dengan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, cabang kehakiman haruslah berani membuat penghakiman yang sewajarnya.

Hanya dengan melakukan apa yang berpatutan selari dengan sistem demokrasi berparlimen, barulah ‘Supremasi Perlembagaan’ dapat dipelihara secara terus menerus.

Malangnya, sesetengah pindaan yang dibentang oleh pihak eksekutif dalam bentuk ‘urusan kerajaan’ di Parlimen, khususnya rang undang-undang untuk meminda sesuatu akta atau sesuatu pindaan perlembagaan semenjak tahun 1957, telah mengubah wajah sistem kehakiman sehingga melemahkan keupayaan cabang kehakiman dalam memelihara ‘Supremasi Perlembagaan’ yang sepatutnya menjadi asas kepada model demokrasi berparlimen yang dipraktiskan di Malaysia.

Berdepan dengan kontroversi seperti isu Akta MKN 2016, pokok perbincangan seharusnya menumpu kepada kekuatan sistem kehakiman yang dapat mengangkat ‘Supremasi Perlembagaan’ dan menyemak cabang eksekutif yang terlampau besar kuasanya.

Sebarang penggubalan akta yang menghala ke arah membentuk pentadbiran diktator secara undang-undang adalah bercanggah dengan semangat perlembagaan yang bertapak atas prinsip negara hukum atau rule of law.

Tindakan Anwar Ibrahim menfailkan saman menuntut semakan kehakiman terhadap Akta MKN 2016 adalah tepat pada masanya. Cabang kehakiman seharusnya berpegang teguh kepada semangat mengangkat ‘Supremasi Perlembagaan’ dalam mengendalikan kes semakan tersebut.

Selain Akta MKN 2016, masih terdapat akta-akta kontroversi yang dibentang oleh cabang eksekutif melalui rang undang-undang kerajaan di Parlimen. Malah, pindaan-pindaan perlembagaan yang tertentu juga mengundang kontroversi pada ketika pindaan berkaitan dikemukakan pada masa lampau.

Kami berpendapat, penubuhan Suruhanjaya Diraja adalah langkah penting pertama menghala ke arah mengembalikan sistem kehakiman yang dapat memelihara ‘Supremasi Perlembagaan’.

Dalam kita menyambut Hari Malaysia dan ketibaan ulang tahun Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang ke-60, mustahak sekali penghayatan ‘Supremasi Perlembagaan’ dikembali ke posisi yang seharusnya selari dengan tiga prinsip asas seperti berikut:

Pertama, prinsip negara hukum atau rule of law dipatuhi;
Kedua, Sebarang akta parlimen yang bercanggah dengan ‘Supremasi Perlembagaan’ dan prinsip negara hukum harus disemak semula;
Ketiga, Sebarang akta parlimen yang memungkinkan pembentukan pentadbiran diktator secara undang-undang dimansuhkan.

 

Tamat.

 

Ooi Heng merupakan pengarah eksekutif KPRU
Elijah Khor merupakan penyelidik KPRU
13 September 2016

 

Badan pemikir Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU), bersamaan dengan Political Studies for Change (KPRU) atau 政改研究所(KPRU).

Portal rasmi: https://kprumalaysia.org/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kprumalaysia/

Emel: kprumalaysia@gmail.com

 

Advertisements

LPA amendments an open attack on independence of M’sian Bar

Amendments to the 1976 Legal Profession Act: 
An open attack on the independence of the Malaysian Bar

Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM) and the following Civil Society Organisations are gravely concerned with the decision of the government to make several amendments to the 1976 Legal Profession Act. Such amendments are open attacks on the independence of the Malaysian Bar and blatant violations of the right to freedom of association as guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.

It sets a dangerous precedent of government interference in the operations of independent statutory bodies and civil society organisations. We urge the government to withdraw such proposals immediately.

The amendments, due to be tabled in parliament in October 2016, empowers the government to abolish the current direct elections of 12 members of the Bar Council through postal votes and replace it with elections at the state level, the appointment of two representatives by the minister in charge of legal affairs to sit in the Bar Council and to increase the quorum of the Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar from 500 to 4000 members.

The government purportedly made the amendments to improve transparency and representation of the Bar Council, when in reality, it does the exact opposite.

First and foremost, these proposals were not mooted by the members of the Malaysian Bar. Furthermore, the proposed bill has not been made available either to the Malaysian Bar or the public. Hence, its claim of improving transparency and representation is highly questionable.

It is ironic that the Attorney General who had complained about the inadequate representation of the current Bar Council had no qualms about government appointees, a measure that is totally devoid of transparency and representation of the members of the Bar.

The proposal to raise the quorum of the Annual General Meeting to 25% of the membership or 4000 members, smacks of ill intent.  It is absolutely unreasonable and unrealistic, since the highest turnout for any of her AGM has not surpassed 1910 lawyers, out of their 17,000 membership. It is designed to paralyze the functions of the Malaysian Bar.

In comparison, the quorum for the AGM of the Canadian Bar Association with 37,000 members, is only 100. The Hong Kong Bar Association with about 1,300 members, requires not less than 20 members as its quorum to convene a general meeting.

We strongly urge the federal government and the Attorney General, to withdraw the planned amendments and to respect the principle of self-regulation and the right to freedom of association of the Malaysian Bar.

It is the right of the members of the Malaysian Bar to choose her leaders and representatives, through a democratic electoral process. The government must not interfere nor impose conditions on this legitimate and transparent electoral process.

Endorsed by member organizations of Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia:

1.Anak Muda Sarawak (AMS)
2.ENGAGE
3.Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
4.Japan Graduates Association Malaysia (JAGAM)
5.Kumpulan Aktivis Mahasiswa Independen (KAMI)
6.Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH)
7.LLG Cultural Development Centre (LLG)
8.Majlis Perundingan Malaysia Agama Buddha, Kritisian, Hindu, Sikh dan Tao (MCCBCHST)
9.Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF)
10.National Indian Rights Action Team (NIAT)
11.Negeri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall (NSCAH)
12.Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)
13.Pusat Komas (KOMAS)
14.Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
15.Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
16.Tamil Foundation (TF)
17.The Association of Graduates from Universities and Colleges of China, Malaysia (Liu Hua)
18.The Federation & Alumni Associations Taiwan University, Malaysia (FAATUM)
19.Tindak Malaysia
20.United Chinese School Alumni Associations of Malaysia (UCSAAM)

 

Endorsed by other non-governmental organzations:

1.Angkatan Warga Aman Malaysia (WargaAMAN)
2.Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
3.Federation of Malaysian Indian Organisation (PRIMA)
4.Friends of Kota Damansara
5.Green Friends Sabah
6.Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS)
7.JIHAD for JUSTICE
8.Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
9.Komuniti Muslim Universal (KMU)
10.Malaysian Indians Progressive Association (MIPAS)
11.Malaysian Indians Transformation Action Team (MITRA)
12.Malaysian Youth And Students Democratic Movement (DEMA)
13.Malaysian Youth Care Association (PRIHATIN)
14.Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI)
15.Perak Women for Women Society (PWW)
16.Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
17.Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur
18.Persatuan Rapat Malaysia (RAPAT)
19.Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor (PSWS)
20.Projek Dialogue
21.Sabah Women’s Action Resource Group (SAWO)
22.Sahabat Rakyat
23.Save Open Spaces, KK
24.Save Sarawak’s Rivers Network (SAVE Rivers)
25.Sekolah Pemikiran Asy Syatibi
26.Sisters in Islam (SIS)
27.Sunflower Electoral Education Movement (SEED)
28.WE ARE MALAYSIANS
29.Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
30.Women’s Centre for Change (WCC)
31.Women Development of Malaysia PJ Branch

 

 

Pindaan kepada Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976:
Satu Serangan Terbuka Terhadap Kebebasan Majlis Peguam
Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM) dan Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Badan Masyarakat Sivil yang berikut berasa amat bimbang dengan keputusan kerajaan untuk membuat beberapa pindaan terhadap Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976. Pindaan-pindaan ini adalah serangan terbuka terhadap kebebasan Majlis Peguam dan secara terang-terangan melanggar hak untuk berpersatuan yang dijamin di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Ia akan menetapkan satu contoh pertama kalinya yang merbahaya dari segi campur tangan kerajaan dalam urusan badan berkanun yang bebas dan pertubuhan-pertubuhan masyarakat sivil. Kami menuntut kerajaan segera menarik balik cadangan pindaan tersebut.
Pindaan-pindaan ini yang bakal dibentangkan di parlimen pada bulan Oktober 2016, memberi kuasa kepada kerajaan untuk memansuhkan pemilihan langsung 12 anggota Majlis Peguam menerusi undi pos dan menggantikannya dengan pemilihan di peringkat negeri, perlantikan dua wakil kerajaan oleh menteri yang bertanggungjawab ke atas hal ehwal undang-undang untuk duduk dalam Majlis Peguam, dan menaikkan kuorum Perhimpunan Agung Majlis Peguam dari 500 ke 4000 ahli.

Kerajaan mendakwa pindaan-pindaan ini dibuat untuk menambahbaik ketelusan dan perwakilan Majlis Peguam, tapi apa yang dilakukan adalah sebaliknya.
Pertama sekali, cadangan-cadangan ini bukan dicadangkan oleh ahli Majlis Peguam. Tambahan pula, akta pindaan yang dicadangkan ini tidak diberikan sama ada kepada Majlis Peguam atau kepada masyarakat umum. Oleh itu, dakwaan berkenaan menambaik ketelusan dan perwakilan boleh dipersoalkan.
Adalah ironik sekali bahawa Peguam Negara yang sebelum ini mempersoalkan perwakilan Majlis Peguam, tidak mempunyai apa-apa bantahan terhadap perlantikan wakil kerajaan yang merupakan satu langkah yang bercanggah dengan ketelusan dan perwakilan ahli-ahli Majlis Peguam.
Cadangan untuk menaikkan kuorum Perhimpunan Agung kepada 25% daripada keahlian atau sejumlah 4000 ahli, jelas mempunyai niat jahat. Ia adalah tidak munasabah dan tidak realistik, memandangkan jumlah tertinggi kehadiran yang dicatat dalam Perhimpunan Agung sebelumnya tidak lebih dari 1910 orang peguam dari jumlah keahlian seramai 17,000. Ia sengaja dirancang untuk melumpuhkan fungsi Majlis Peguam.

Untuk perbandingan, Perhimpunan Agung Majlis Peguam Kanada yang seramai 37,000 ahli kuorumnya cuma seramai 100 ahli. Majlis Peguam Hong Kong yang mempunyai 1,300 ahli hanya memerlukan tidak kurang dari 20 ahli sebagai kuorum untuk mengadakan perhimpunan agung.

Kami menyeru kerajaan persekutuan dan Peguam Negara untuk menarik balik cadangan-cadangan pindaan ini dan menghormati prinsip pengawalseliaan sendiri dan kebebasan berpersatuan Majlis Peguam.

Ahli-ahli Majlis Peguam mempunyai hak untuk memilih pemimpin dan wakil mereka melalui proses pemilihan yang demokratik. Kerajaan tidak patut campur tangan atau mengenakan syarat ke atas proses pemilihan sedia ada yang sah dan telus.

Senarai badan-badan pertubuhan ahli Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia:
1.Anak Muda Sarawak (AMS)
2.ENGAGE
3.Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
4.Japan Graduates Association Malaysia (JAGAM)
5.Kumpulan Aktivis Mahasiswa Independen (KAMI)
6.Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH)
7.LLG Cultural Development Centre (LLG)
8.Majlis Perundingan Malaysia Agama Buddha, Kritisian, Hindu, Sikh dan Tao (MCCBCHST)
9.Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF)
10.National Indian Rights Action Team (NIAT)
11.Negeri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall (NSCAH)
12.Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)
13.Pusat Komas (KOMAS)
14.Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
15.Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
16.Tamil Foundation (TF)
17.The Association of Graduates from Universities and Colleges of China, Malaysia (Liu Hua)
18.The Federation & Alumni Associations Taiwan University, Malaysia (FAATUM)
19.Tindak Malaysia
20.United Chinese School Alumni Associations of Malaysia (UCSAAM)

 

Senarai badan-badan masyarakat madani lain:
1.Angkatan Warga Aman Malaysia (WargaAMAN)
2.Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
3.Federation of Malaysian Indian Organisation (PRIMA)
4.Friends of Kota Damansara
5.Green Friends Sabah
6.Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS)
7.JIHAD for JUSTICE
8.Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
9.Komuniti Muslim Universal (KMU)
10.Malaysian Indians Progressive Association (MIPAS)
11.Malaysian Indians Transformation Action Team (MITRA)
12.Malaysian Youth And Students Democratic Movement (DEMA)
13.Malaysian Youth Care Association (PRIHATIN)
14.Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI)
15.Perak Women for Women Society (PWW)
16.Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
17.Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur
18.Persatuan Rapat Malaysia (RAPAT)
19.Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor (PSWS)
20.Projek Dialogue
21.Sabah Women’s Action Resource Group (SAWO)
22.Sahabat Rakyat
23.Save Open Spaces, KK
24.Save Sarawak’s Rivers Network (SAVE Rivers)
25.Sekolah Pemikiran Asy Syatibi
26.Sisters in Islam (SIS)
27.Sunflower Electoral Education Movement (SEED)
28.WE ARE MALAYSIANS
29.Writers Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
30.Women’s Centre for Change (WCC)
31.Women Development of Malaysia PJ Branch

KPRU Parliamentary Policy Briefing on The Child (Amendment) Bill 2015

kpru 323

[ Policy Matters ] – KPRU Parliamentary Policy Briefing on
The Child (Amendment) Bill 2015

Organised by Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)

Date: 23 March 2016 (Wednesday)
Time: 1.00pm – 2.30pm
Venue: Parliament

Panel Moderator: Ampang MP, Zuraida Kamaruddin

Panel of presenters: 

  1. Sharmila Sekarajasekaran, Chairperson of Voice of the Children (VoC)
  2. Melissa Mohd Akhir, Senior Advocacy Officer, Women’s Centre for Change (WCC) Penang

NGOs:

Melur Natasya Saufi, Protect and Save the Children (P.S. The Children)

Andi Suraidah Bandy, Legal Officer, Sisters in Islam,.

Lainey Lau, Advocacy Officer, Women’s Aid Organisation

Goh Siu Lin, President, Association of Women Lawyers

Suguna Papachan, Assistant Secretary, Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor

 

Ooi Heng

Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
or Political Studies for Change (KPRU)

FB: https://www.facebook.com/kprumalaysia/?ref=bookmarks

KPRU Parliamentary Policy Briefing on The Companies Bill 2015

kpru 322

 

[ Policy Matters ] – KPRU Parliamentary Policy Briefing on
The Companies Bill 2015

Organised by Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)

Date: 22 March 2016 (Tuesday)
Time: 1.00pm – 2.30pm
Venue: Parliament

Panel Moderator: Kelana Jaya MP, Wong Chen

Panel of Speakers:
1) Wong Tat Chung, Co Chairperson, Corporate and Commercial Law Committee (CCLC), Bar Council.

2) Jeremiah Gurusamy, Co Chairperson of CCLC

 

Ooi Heng

Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
or Political Studies for Change (KPRU)

FB: https://www.facebook.com/kprumalaysia/?ref=bookmarks

The age of the decline of democratisation

The age of the decline of democratisation

On Aug 10, 2015, which was Anwar Ibrahim’s 68th birthday, there were two groups of “big shots” in the international community demanding that the Malaysian government releases jailed former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

On the one hand there were famous politicians, worldwide, urging the Malaysian government to release Anwar from jail unconditionally and immediately, while on the other hand there were intellectuals, academicians and social activists condemning the “politically-motivated” charges against Anwar.

Among them, there was a Japanese American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, who published his essay, “The End of History?” in the 1980s, which raised heated discussions.

In recent years, Fukuyama came out with his masterpiece, “The Origin of Political Order” and in the next book, “Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy”, it is stated that the three essential elements of modern political order are the state, rule of law and democratic accountability.

“The state” covers various dimensions but basically it includes state-building, state institutions, state capacity, governing ability, efficiency, clean governance, etc.

The comprehensiveness of the “rule of law” would depend on whether the implementation of the law can be easily hijacked by an individual. “Democratic accountability” includes the establishment and consolidation of various accountability and oversight mechanisms.

Concluding the chaos and development of 2015 by using these three elements for analysis, it shows that Malaysia is entering an uneasy situation in 2016.

Whether it is in terms of important fields such as politics, economy, religion or ethnicity, the development in the past year was showing an uneasy, declining situation which I believe would continue to happen in the months and years ahead.

While entering the year 2016, a basic question we need to ask is: was the political idling in the past year to sustain someone’s power and position, or rather destroying the credibility of the country for the sake of someone’s self-protection?

If the answer is the latter one, this country is obviously either stalled or moving backwards, and it means that the political system has been undergoing a non-stop destruction, up to the extent that it severely affects either state-building, the rule of law, or the accountable government. The severe collapse of either one would be disturbing.

In terms of the rule of law, in order to protect someone, as well as a political group, the credibility of this country has been severely damaged.

Among those severely affecting the rule of law would be the introduction of various controversial acts by the federal government, after the abolishment of the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA).

These include the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (Pota), and the National Security Council Bill 2015, which was swiftly passed by both houses of Parliament last year and is yet to be assented into law by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

In the recent years, social movements have been growing strong and in addition, there is the combination of political opposition movements, thus pushing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to announce the abolishment of draconian laws in 2011, giving people hope that the democratic process would leap forward.

Controversial admendments

However, in the end, many controversial amendments were made to existing laws and new laws were introduced, which are contrary to Najib’s promises of reformation.

In December last year, the Parliament passed the National Security Council Bill in a hurry, which shocked the entire nation, and it is reasonable for the civil society to worry about this new law.

For instance, in 2012, Najib promised that Sosma would not be abused. On April 16, 2012, he promised various protection measures in the Dewan Rakyat, including not arresting anyone under Sosma for involvement in political activities, as well as the establishment of a committee to periodically review the Act upon its enforcement.

Despite these promises, after three years, the former Umno division vice-chief Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang, who publicly reported the 1MDB scandal, were arrested under this law.

And since Sosma was gazetted on June 22, 2012, and was scheduled to take effect from July 31, 2012, till date there is still no progress on the committee that was promised – and despite pledges that the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) and the Malaysian Bar president would be invited to join the committee.

At this point, the BN government has lost its credibility. So, how is it going to gain the people’s trust? How is it going to persuade the people not to worry about the National Security Council Bill? Here comes a new controversial law, further destructing the judiciary, giving the prime minister alone the greatest power, together with his power bloc stampeding the rule of law.

Democracy declining

This nevertheless predicts that the democratisation of Malaysia is declining in 2016, moving from a one-party-dominant authoritarian regime to a personal dictatorship.

Besides this, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 2015, for which the second reading was delayed last year, cannot be ignored too. Once the original amendment bill is passed, it will further force the court to surrender part of its right of judicial review.

Among the most worrying one is that the police may, without warrant, arrest someone who is involved in an “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy”; thereby overturning matters that are subjected to court ruling, including, if someone is facing multiple charges and found guilty, the power of the court to decide whether to execute the penalty concurrently.

Many of the recent controversial bills were passed in the Parliament in the name of anti-terrorism, but the logic behind them is to gradually get the court to surrender the relevant rights of judicial review, and in terms of law enforcement, there would be more and more persecutions against detractors in the name of “detrimental to parliamentary democracy”.

And today, while someone is conducting a self-coup[1], the insistence of the entire cabinet and the state organ towards the constitutional spirit and the basic principles of judicial power is abnormally loose.

This political direction, led by the erroneous executive power, is clearly inconsistent with the direction of change and reform produced by the collection and releasing of the civil society forces, and they are full of contradictions and conflicts. Such political direction shows a sign of declination of the democratisation.

The year of 2016 makes people feel uneasy, and in my opinion, it is all because after the year 2015, Malaysia is entering the age of the decline of democratisation.

 

Released by,

Ooi Heng

Executive director

Political Studies for Change (or, Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan, KPRU)

6 January 2016

 

[1] https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/323873

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/325630

‘Sosma review committee yet another Najib’s unfulfilled promise’

‘Sosma review committee yet another Najib’s unfulfilled promise’
4 Nov 2015

Three years since promising to form a committee to review the Security Offences (Safety Measures) Act 2012, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has failed to fulfil his promise, think tank Political Studies for Change (KPRU) said.

KPRU executive director Ooi Heng said the Hansard shows Najib promised to do twice in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, but three years and three months later, this has yet to happen.

“While tabling the Sosma Bill on April 16, 2012, Najib said the government would form a committee to review the Act from time to time, and to recommend improvements.

“The prime minister also said at a Dewan Rakyat event the same day that ‘the committee will not only be made up of government agency representatives, but also the Malaysian Bar president and National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) representative’.

“The same guarantee was repeated by the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui Keong on May 8, 2012,” he said.

Ooi said the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on June 18 had consented to the Sosma Bill and the legislation was subsequently gazetted as ‘Act 747’ and came into force on July 31, 2012.

However, the review committee is still nowhere in sight.

Yesterday, Bar Council president Steven Thiru raised the issue during a forum with former attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail.

Gani urged the Bar Council to take up the issue with the government.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/318431

Malay:https://kprumalaysia.org/2015/11/04/janji-najib-tubuh-jawatankuasa-sosma-luput-3-tahun-3-bulan-3-hari/

 

Janji Najib Tubuh Jawatankuasa Sosma Luput 3 Tahun 3 Bulan 3 Hari

Janji Najib Tubuh Jawatankuasa Sosma Luput 3 Tahun 3 Bulan 3 Hari

Susulan kenyataan mantan peguam negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail pada 3 November 2015, badan pemikir Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU) ingin mengingatkan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak, bahawa janji beliau menubuhkan sebuah jawatankuasa menyemak Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) (Sosma) 2012 apabila Akta Sosma dikuatkuasakan telahpun luput selama tiga tahun tiga bulan tiga hari.

KPRU telah menyemak penyata rasmi kedua-dua Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negara dan mendapati bahawa pada 3 November 2015, yakni pada hari mantan peguam negara memberikan ucapan dalam forum yang dianjurkan Majlis Peguam bertajuk “Sosma – Serigala dalam badan kambing?” di Kuala Lumpur, jaminan yang dberikan oleh Perdana Menteri semasa beliau membaca kali yang kedua Rang Undang-Undang Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) (Sosma) 2012, telah luput selama tiga tahun tiga bulan tiga hari.

Pada 16 April 2012, semasa mencadangkan Rang Undang-undang Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 dibacakan kali yang kedua, Perdana Menteri telah memberikan jaminan yang berbunyi seperti berikut:

“Lindung jamin keenam ialah apabila akta ini berkuat kuasa, kerajaan juga akan menubuhkan satu jawatankuasa secara pentadbiran untuk menyemak keseluruhan akta ini daripada semasa ke semasa dan jawatankuasa ini akan juga bertanggungjawab untuk meneliti pelaksanaan akta tersebut dan mengemukakan syor untuk penambahbaikan.”

Perdana Menteri juga menyatakan dalam Majlis Mesyuarat Dewan Rakyat pada hari tersebut, bahawa “jawatankuasa ini akan dianggotai bukan sahaja dari agensi-agensi berkenaan tetapi juga oleh Presiden Majlis Peguam dan SUHAKAM.”

KPRU mendapati, jaminan yang sama telah diulang oleh Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri pada ketika itu Datuk Liew Vui Keong dalam Majlis Mesyuarat Dewan Negara pada 8 Mei 2012.

KPRU juga menyemak status Akta Sosma dan mendapati bahawa Akta Sosma telah diperkenan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong pada 18 Jun 2012, diwartakan pada 22 Jun 2012 sebagai Akta 747 dan dikuatkuasa pada 31 Julai 2012.

Dikeluarkan oleh,
Ooi Heng
Pengarah eksekutif
Kajian Politik untuk Perubahan (KPRU)
4 November 2015